2014-08-27
Madam Speaker Purick took the Chair at 10 am.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Madam SPEAKER: Mr Clerk, please pause. Member for Namatjira, I asked you to cease interjecting. Leave the Chamber for one hour pursuant to Standing Order 240A.
Member for Stuart, cease calling across the floor!
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.
This bill seeks to clarify the operation of the crime-used property substitution declaration sections of the Criminal Property Forfeiture Act and other matters arising from the judgment of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory in Director of Public Prosecutions v Green 2010 NTSC 16.
This bill amends the Criminal Property Forfeiture Act to ensure that crime-used property substitution declarations provisions apply regardless of whether a criminal has a legal or equitable interest in the crime-used property created through an agreement.
In order to put these clauses of the bill into context, I will briefly describe the provisions of the act relating to crime-used property and sections relating to crime-used property substitution declarations.
Section 10(3) of the Criminal Property Forfeiture Act states that the objectives of crime-used property sections of the act are to ensure:
Sections 11(1)(a), (b) and (c) describe the circumstances where property is crime-used.
If property falls under the definition of crime-used property, a restraining order can be made in relation to that property under Part 4 of the Criminal Property Forfeiture Act. A restraining order restricts how the property can be dealt with and enables the property to be available for forfeiture to the Crown, if the court so orders under sections 95 and 96.
Crime-used property substitution declarations: section 82(a) of the Criminal Property Forfeiture Act states that crime-used property is not available for forfeiture if the person who crime-used the property (the respondent) does not own or have effective control of the property. The principle objective of this section is to ensure innocent parties who lease or otherwise give certain rights to the property to a third party do not have their property forfeited where the third party crime-uses the property.
Where section 82 applies, section 81(2) empowers the court to declare that property of equivalent value owned or effectively controlled by the third party (the respondent) is to be substituted for the actual crime-used property if:
(a) it is more likely than not the respondent has made criminal use of the property so that the property is crime-used; and
(b) the crime-used property is not amenable to a restraining order or forfeiture under the act for the same reason in section 82.
I now move to the interpretation of the sections for the Criminal Property Forfeiture Act by the Full Court in the matter of Director of Public Prosecutions v Green. I shall refer to Mr Green in this instance as the respondent.
The respondent was convicted of a forfeiture offence involving the growing of hydroponic cannabis on a rural property leased by him. The property leased by the respondent had a freehold value of $1.5m. As the title holder was an innocent party to the criminal offending, the issue arose as to whether the respondent owned or effectively controlled the property and, if not, whether the crime-used property substitution declaration provisions could be applied.
The Director of Public Prosecutions pursued forfeiture of the property owned by the respondent, a unit worth $205 000 and land worth $105 000, under the crime-used property substitution provisions of the Criminal Property Forfeiture Act.
However, the Full Court found that the crime-used property substitution declaration sections did not apply, as the respondent had a legal or equitable interest in the crime-used property through the lease and was, therefore, an owner for the purposes of the Criminal Property Forfeiture Act.
The terms ‘owner’ and ‘property’ have broad definitions under the act, and the Full Court found that the use of these words allowed for legal and equitable interests in real or personal property of any description to confer ownership upon the party. These legal and equitable interests include leases and other agreements, meaning the agreement is crime-used, hence the value of the lease or agreement is available for forfeiture and the substitution provisions cannot be used.
The court found that the leasehold interest the respondent had in the property, valued at approximately $10 000, was crime-used and available for forfeiture.
The practical implication of this decision is that criminals can lease, or gain an interest in, property or premises for the purposes of conducting criminal enterprises, and only the property or interest that is available for forfeiture under the Criminal Property Forfeiture Act is the value of their leasehold interest or any other interest created through an agreement. This means that the crime-used property substitution declaration sections of the act cannot be utilised and are redundant when a leasehold interest, and possibly other agreements, are in place.
The interpretation is inconsistent with the aims and purposes of sections 10, 11, 81 and 82 of the Criminal Property Forfeiture Act and has created a loophole that has been, and will be, exploited if not rectified.
The Criminal Property Forfeiture Amendment Bill 2014 closes this loophole by clarifying that an interest in the property created through an agreement does not confer rights of an owner and does not preclude the Director of Public Prosecutions from using crime-used property substitution declaration sections of the act.
Clause 4 of the bill amends section 5 of the Criminal Property Forfeiture Act and inserts a definition for ‘agreement’. The clause defines an agreement to mean ‘a tenancy, lease, hire agreement or contract’. This definition is relevant for the amendments of clauses 6 and 7 of the bill.
Clause 5 of the bill amends section 81(2) of the Criminal Property Forfeiture Act, by omitting the word ‘may’ and inserting the word ‘must’. Currently, section 81(2) states that the court ‘may’ declare that a property of equivalent value be substituted if the court is satisfied of certain matters. This means the court has the discretion to make a substitution declaration, even where it is satisfied that the Director of Public Prosecutions has made out their case. The amendment ensures that where a court is satisfied of matters stated in section 81(2), it must make a substitution declaration regarding the property. It should be noted that section 81(2) only relates to a court making a declaration regarding the availability of property for substitution, and the court still maintains its discretion when ordering the forfeiture of a respondent’s property sought in substitution under sections 98 and 101 of the Criminal Property Forfeiture Act.
Clause 6 of the bill amends section 82(a). Currently, section 82(a) states that crime-used property is not available for forfeiture if the respondent does not own or have effective control of the property. When section 82(a) is applicable, the substitution provisions can be utilised. The implication of the decision in Green is that the substitution provisions are unable to be used where a criminal has a leasehold, or other interest conferred by an agreement, in the property. As the agreement or interest is crime-used, its property value is subject to forfeiture.
Clause 6 of the bill rectifies the issue by omitting section 82(a) and replacing it with a provision that:
(a) protects the rights of an innocent titleholder who entered into an agreement regarding the crime-used property, for example, a person who grants a lease; and
(b) ensures that criminals cannot use such interest created by an agreement to defeat the property substitution provisions of the Criminal Property Forfeiture Act.
The clause provides that, for section 81, crime-used property is not available for forfeiture if, at the time the property was crime-used, the respondent:
(a) had legal or equitable interest in the property through an agreement granted by another person who is an innocent party in relation to the property; or
(b) had a right of occupancy, use, or possession of the property through an agreement granted by another person who is an innocent party in relation to the property; or
(c) did not have effective control of the property.
Clause 7 of the bill clarifies what is meant by ‘property of equivalent value’. Currently, property of equivalent value is not defined, and the term can be interpreted in a number of ways, including property of the equivalent value under an agreement. Clause 7 amends section 85 of the Criminal Property Forfeiture Act and states that ‘the value of crime-used property is the freehold value of the real property or the full value of the other property, and not the value of an interest in the property under an agreement’.
Clause 8 of the bill contains a traditional provision that states that the Criminal Property Forfeiture Act, as amended by this bill, applies in relation to proceedings that are commenced after the commencement of this bill.
This bill will ensure that the aims of the crime-used and crime-used property substitution declaration sections of the Criminal Property Forfeiture Act are fully realised and will ensure criminals and criminal syndicates cannot circumvent these sections by entering into agreements regarding other people’s property they crime-use. Where a criminal enters into an agreement with an innocent party and subsequently crime-uses the property, they will be subject to the property substitution provisions of the act and property they own or effectively control, to an equivalent value of the crime-used property, will be substituted and will be available for forfeiture.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the bills entitled Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Conferral of Jurisdiction for Amendments) (No 2) Bill 2014 (Serial 92) and the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Conferral of Jurisdiction for Native Title Matters) Bill 2014 (Serial 93):
(a) being presented and read a first time together and one motion being put in regard to, respectively, the second readings, the committee’s report stage and the third readings of the bills together
(b) being considered separately in the Committee of the Whole.
Motion agreed to.
Bills presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a second time.
The Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act, which was passed on the 21 August 2014, seeks to establish in the Northern Territory a new tribunal with jurisdiction to hear and determine a broad range of matters. The act creates the tribunal, contains the membership provisions, and sets out the tribunal’s generic functions and powers. This act does not, however, confer any jurisdiction on the tribunal. Conferral of jurisdiction will be the subject of a series of separate bills.
Over the coming years, the entire Territory statute book will be reviewed and amended as necessary to reflect the existence of the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal. Ultimately, it is intended to consolidate the vast range of existing tribunals into the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal and remove as much of the administrative jurisdiction from the courts as is sensible.
I have already introduced the first of these conferral jurisdiction bills relating to my own portfolio of the Attorney-General and Justice, and these bills continue the process of jurisdictional transfers. The Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Conferral of Jurisdiction Amendments) (No 2) Bill 2014 is yet another step in providing the new Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal with its initial jurisdiction.
The bill consequentially amends legislation to abolish the Health Professional Review Tribunal and the Pastoral Land Appeal Tribunal, and transfers the jurisdictions to the new Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal. Likewise, the bill transfers the jurisdiction of the Lands, Planning and Mining Tribunal to the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
Another key feature of the bill is the transfer of all dispute resolution powers of the Commissioner of Tenancies under the Residential Tenancies Act and the Caravan Parks Act to the tribunal. This brings the Northern Territory’s residential tenancy dispute resolutions system in line with the processes that operate in most other jurisdictions.
The merit review jurisdiction of the Local Court under this act has also been removed, as the dispute resolution powers now lie with the tribunal and not a statutory officer, that is, the commissioner. In addition, the bill will also transfer all jurisdiction from the courts to the tribunal where the courts have original or review jurisdiction under the following legislation: the Energy Pipelines Act; the Pastoral Land Act; and the Petroleum Act.
I turn to the specific changes to the legislation which will result from this bill.
Building Act and Building (Resolution of Residential Building Work Disputes) Regulations: the Lands, Planning and Mining Tribunal has jurisdiction under this legislation in relation to residential building consumer projection disputes. The legislation is being consequently amended to remove reference to this tribunal and insert in its stead reference to the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
Caravan Parks Act: under the act a statutory officer, the Commissioner of Tenancies, holds dispute resolution powers for disputes arising between tenants and caravan park operators. The Local Court also holds both original and review jurisdiction to hear and determine applications made under this act. The act is being amended to transfer jurisdiction from the commissioner to the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal, and to remove the jurisdiction of the Local Court under the act.
Control of Roads Act: under the act, the Lands, Planning and Mining Tribunal is empowered to determine claims for compensation for land acquired pursuant to the act. The legislation is being consequentially amended to remove reference to this tribunal and insert in its stead reference to the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
Energy Pipelines Act: the Lands, Planning and Mining Tribunal has jurisdiction under this legislation to hear and determine disputes about compensation. The legislation is being consequentially amended to remove reference to this tribunal and insert in its stead reference to the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal. In addition, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to determine compensation payable to a licence holder whose licence is varied in the public interest by the minister. The Supreme Court also holds jurisdiction to determine applications seeking rectification of entries into the Register of Licences under the act. Both jurisdictions have been transferred to the tribunal.
Geothermal Energy Act and Geothermal Energy Regulations: the Lands, Planning and Mining Tribunal has jurisdiction under this legislation to review certain decisions of the minister. The legislation is being consequentially amended to remove reference to this tribunal and insert in its stead a reference to the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
Health Practitioner Regulation (National Uniform Legislation) Act and Health Practitioner Act: both pieces of legislation are being amended to abolish the Health Professional Review Tribunal and to transfer this tribunal’s jurisdiction to the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
Heritage Act: under the act the Lands, Planning and Mining Tribunal is empowered to review a range of decisions made pursuant to the act, and to hear and decide applications for confirmation of stop work orders. The legislation is being consequentially amended to remove reference to this tribunal and insert in its stead reference to the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
Lands Acquisition Act and Lands Acquisition Regulations: under the act the Lands, Planning and Mining Tribunal is empowered to hear and make recommendations about objections to the acquisition of land under the act by persons whose interests in the land will be divested, modified, or affected by the acquisition. The legislation is being consequentially amended to remove reference to this tribunal and insert in its stead reference to the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
Minerals Titles Act and Minerals Titles Regulations: the Lands, Planning and Mining Tribunal has jurisdiction under this legislation to hear and make recommendations about grants of mineral titles. The legislation is being consequentially amended to remove reference to this tribunal and insert in its stead reference to the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
Pastoral Lands Act and Pastoral Lands Regulations: the Lands, Planning and Mining Tribunal has jurisdiction under the act to hear and determine disputes about compensation. The tribunal can also hear and make recommendations about objections by registered native title claimants and registered native title bodies corporate to the extension or grant of a pastoral lease as it affects their rights and interests. The legislation is being consequentially amended to remove reference to this tribunal and insert in its stead reference to the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
The act is further being amended to abolish the Pastoral Land Appeal Tribunal and to transfer this tribunal’s jurisdiction to the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
The act also provides an appeal right to the Supreme Court against certain decisions of the minister subject to a number of specified limitations. The act is being amended to transfer the jurisdiction from the court to the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
Petroleum Act: the Lands, Planning and Mining Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes about compensation. The tribunal also has jurisdiction to hear and make recommendations about objections by registered native title bodies corporate to the doing of prescribed acts under the legislation that affect their rights and interests. The legislation is being consequentially amended to remove reference to this tribunal and instead insert in it reference to the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
Planning Act and Planning Regulations: the Lands, Planning and Mining Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine planning appeals from decisions of the Development Consent Authority. The legislation is being consequentially amended to remove reference to this tribunal and insert in it instead reference to the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
Residential Tenancies Act: under the act, a statutory officer, the Commissioner of Tenancies, holds dispute resolution powers for disputes arising between tenants and landlords. The Local Court also holds original and reviewed jurisdiction to hear and determine applications made under this act. The act is being amended to transfer jurisdiction from the commissioner to the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal and to remove the jurisdiction of the Local Court under the act.
I turn to the second bill, the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Conferral of Jurisdictions for Native Title Matters) Bill 2014, the second half of this cognate bill. It repeals the Lands, Planning and Mining Tribunal Act, thereby abolishing the Lands, Planning and Mining Tribunal.
Further, it preserves the consequences for land administration in the Northern Territory that flow from the Commonwealth’s Native Title Amendment Act 1998 upon the repeal of the Lands, Planning and Mining Tribunal Act.
In closing, these bills represent another step in the complex task of reviewing legislation and, where appropriate, transferring jurisdiction to the new Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
My ministerial colleagues and I look forward to presenting further bills over time to continue the process of jurisdictional transfers to this new tribunal.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the bills to honourable members, and table a copy of the requisite explanatory statements.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 15 May 2014.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing the legislation to the House. I thank the minister for organising a briefing from the department and informing me to inform the opposition team about the Livestock Amendment Bill 2014. I advise the minister the opposition will support this legislation. We also thank the minister for the opportunity to learn about this legislation in an appropriate and constructive way.
The purpose of the Livestock Amendment Bill is to give power under the act to enable the collection for fees for service. At present, there is no capacity in the act to allow for the collection of fees for any services provided by the Animal Biosecurity Branch of the Biosecurity and Product Integrity Group. It is understood that other jurisdictions have similar fees for service, and fees are already being collected for plant biosecurity.
The Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries’ second reading speech was short, but it also offered the opportunity of a briefing. The Territory opposition also sought feedback from stakeholders. There was inevitability in the bush about these fees.
Animal Biosecurity officers in the department undertake important work, and biosecurity is crucial to the future of agriculture in the Northern Territory. Stock inspectors help to ensure Territory exports are disease free so we can see continued growth exports from the Territory.
Nonetheless, the decision by government to introduce fees unilaterally will put pressure on the bottom line of agricultural businesses across the Northern Territory. This year is a good example to use with, in the southern part of the Northern Territory, a marginal Wet Season and the pressure on the bottom line of producers that will be experienced.
The Territory opposition acknowledges a good initiative of the government, the waiver of the pastoral rent scheme on drought-affected properties and the extension of the time frame around applications. I am sure the pastoral community does also. It is good policy because it represented Labor policy that immediately waivered the pastoral rent scheme after the federal live export ban. We initiated that policy to help with major pressures and challenges on the industry. We can see it is being applied by the Country Liberal Party government for the pastoral sector in times of marginal seasons and drought.
Essentially, there is an opportunity where these new fees could be used in a policy waiver for the future to support drought-affected properties. We are talking about 2014 in that marginal season. With the application of these new fees in 2015, I am sure the minister, the government and the department will be watching the season closely to see how things pan out for 2015-16. The amount of the value of fees to be collected will vary with export volumes.
Estimates Committee Written Question No 175-25 indicated that plant biosecurity fees were introduced by the Biosecurity and Product Integrity Group of the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries in early 2013 for those services provided to parties for commercial reasons. Changes to the Livestock Act were required to enable similar animal biosecurity fees for service to be charged. Legislation is now passing through the House, and it is envisaged these charges will commence in early January 2015. The total biosecurity fee revenue budgeted for 2014-15 is $50 000 for plants and $30 000 for livestock as a benchmark. Although it has not been possible to start charging fees for animal biosecurity services yet, fees for plant biosecurity services have generated $62 000 as of 11 June in the 2013-14 year. There has been extensive consultation and communication with the affected industries, which is continuing.
We thank the minister for the answer to that written question. It provides further good advice and information when the opposition is communicating with team members, formulating a position and either challenging the legislation or, in this case, supporting it.
One of the discussions continually at the forefront for the Territory opposition is about the cost of living, because economic policy driven by government needs to be cognisant of cost of living. In the Developing the North strategy and growing the pastoral industry, those elements related to production costs need to be factored in. The department, at the briefing, indicated it is looking at fees of about $1 per head. Taken alone, this fee may not seem a lot, but it comes on top of other cost-of-living rises being felt in the bush. This needs to be discussed. When constituents across the Northern Territory are familiarising themselves with this legislation, $1 per head needs to be talked about. The pastoralists are needing that $1 figure per kilo. When the returns for beef, in this case, are beyond $2 per kilo, the industry is doing well. However, when those prices drop, the industry is under stress and those production costs come into play.
When we factor in new legislation for the Northern Territory industry, we must also look at other factors across the country. When we look at the federal arena, we are seeing increasing fuel costs, increasing live animal export fees and animal biosecurity fees, and there will be increases in transport costs. Then, add environmental influences regarding the seasons. These factors all contribute to real constraints to production because they affect the bottom line of profitability in the pastoral and agricultural sectors.
We agree the agenda is for growth in the industry, but we need to be aware that a combination of other charges and costs, combined with the federal government’s planned indexation of fuel excise and Territorians’ fuel bills, will continue to push up this cost-of-living issue and challenge production.
Minister, we are putting that on the table to make it very clear, and ask that you continue your work with the department to regularly look at modelling those economic impacts on the Territory, ensuring calculations which are done are made available, and the debate is raised within the Territory. Also, in your privileged position, that you liaise closely with your federal counterparts to ensure the extra fuel excise raised is allocated to Territory road transport infrastructure.
The minister would be aware that, as would most people in this House, when you talk to people in the bush, one of the topics high on the agenda is road transport infrastructure. It is important we are able to articulate to the constituency that these rising costs, under a federal Liberal Coalition and the Country Liberal Party in the Northern Territory, will have a benefit for their industry. With the increase in fuel excise, one of those areas will be there will be a return into road transport infrastructure. It is important, as the minister would know, that there is good communication with stakeholders about their concerns that this information is translated to their federal colleagues and counterparts in Canberra, and that Territory story needs to be told.
In relation to the effect of this legislation, it is not just about the Territory government increasing direct costs for live exporters. The federal government is increasing live animal export fees and charges by up to 60%. This is a real impost on Territory producers. When we factor in the other challenges, including environmental challenges, then this can be really serious in viability and sustainability.
The Department of Agriculture told the ABC on 27 June 2014 that cost recovery charges for live animal export certification are designed to recover the full cost the department incurs in demonstrating compliance with importing country requirements, and the administration of the Exporters Supply Chain Assurance System (ESCAS). On the ABC, the Department of Agriculture went on to say the Department of Agriculture currently spends $10.1m a year on live animal export certification and ESCAS services, but only recovers $6.5m to pay for those services. This shortfall has been a major contributor to the department’s operating deficit over the last three years, and is not sustainable.
However, the Australian Live Exporters Council labelled the live animal export fee increases bureaucratic bastardry from the federal government. That is a pretty straight shot from a rural sector. Anyone who knows people on the land knows they talk straight. These comments directly reflect the challenges which are placed on an industry which faces a plethora of challenges, both economically and environmentally.
The council’s Chief Executive, Alison Penfold, went so far as to say the price hike could put some operators out of business. That was published in the Weekly Times on 27 June 2014. These are real issues the minister, no doubt, takes up with his federal colleagues.
Visiting the Northern Australia Development Office the other day I saw the federal minister, Barnaby Joyce, exiting with an entourage of people. So he is around and is approachable. I am sure the minister will have a direct line to make Senator Joyce aware of the Territory issues and the real issues that change from year to year. It is about standing up for Territory agribusiness, and we support the minister in that task and offer the minister any help we can.
Likewise, the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries has indicated that biosecurity fees that are implemented are not based on full cost recovery, and we acknowledge that as the Territory Labor opposition. The minister is wise in accepting that advice. We will watch this legislation over time for any shortfall and the challenges around providing biosecurity services.
Taken in isolation, the proposed animal biosecurity fees may be reasonable. However, we need, on behalf of the pastoral sector, a guarantee that these fees will not increase over time to achieve a full cost recovery. We acknowledge the goodwill in this legislation from the government, and we hope to see that goodwill extend into the future. As I said in my contribution to debate on behalf of the Labor team, animal biosecurity fees could not come at a more difficult time with increasing fuel prices, federal indexation, and huge increases in federal live animal export charges. We have to be aware and be supportive of industry.
It was good that the briefing extended to a tour of Berrimah Farm facilities – well, some of the Berrimah farm facilities, as it is quite an extensive operation. I learned it is a world-class facility, with a world-class veterinary laboratory that represents northern Australia. It does the work that contributes to public health, disease investigation, and proof for freedom in disease status within industry. We met a great bunch of people there.
It was a very interesting tour looking at the banana freckle eradication team response, its headquarters, and the program. I thank the minister for the invitation. That shows a good level of bipartisan support because, as elected members of the community, it is all about learning, and being well-informed. That represented a great pragmatic show of support. It was a very interesting tour and a great learning curve. I put on the record a thank you to all the people at the Berrimah Research Farm who contributed to that visit by me, adviser Mr David Halliday and the Independent member for Nelson, who was interesting to learn from as well with his experience in the industry.
The other issue in this debate I put on the record is that it was good to have a briefing and talk with industry experts. They represent not only scientists and veterinarians, but also department officers. It was good to discuss other things as well, particularly the live export opportunities in the buffalo industry. The Chief Minister talked about that in his Developing the North Strategy and threw out numbers like 10 000 buffalo per year. It was good to bring that back from the political one-liner and talk to the experts in the industry who represent, work with and regulate the industry, about how that really works, what those constraints are and how we will grow a new live export industry within the Northern Territory.
In relation to providing biosecurity services, I had a question straight up about the new Australian Agricultural Company (AACo) export abattoir, and what that means for the department, the government and the provision of biosecurity services in disease control. It was another good opportunity to discuss these things and learn. Once again, I thank the department representatives for providing the information and the discussion, because I am interested in the parallel of the live export cattle industry and the opportunities that our northern Australian abattoir will provide in regard to boxed beef exports.
Having lived in the Barkly for a long time and having seen and visited the Tennant Creek export abattoir, I saw a working model of that in the early 1980s. I saw and understood the potential.
I had an Aboriginal assistant teacher who fainted on the kill floor. It is very unusual, in my opinion, that an Aboriginal person would faint on a kill floor of an export abattoir, because there were many kills on the station and the Aboriginal people I have grown up with are very confident hunters in the bush. I remember on Robinson River, having the only Toyota that started with a key. We were doing one kill a week.
I hold a title there, because it sent an alarm bell through the industry and through the Commonwealth inspectoral services – how did this teacher get into the abattoir, onto the kill floor, and how did this citizen faint? There was a massive exercise going on, exporting Australian beef to America at that stage.
It was all cleared up. I did not suffer any career disadvantage. The principal then had to work with the Department of Education to develop a policy around this issue, about teachers and students visiting export abattoirs. However, I digress.
To cut a long story short, I am very interested in the Australian Agricultural Company’s new initiative in northern Australia. I have watched it grow as I enter and exit this fair city by road regularly. I am interested in getting on-site too, to see it in operation – no problem. I would like to go back and look at the difference in technology and processes that have taken place over 30 years.
It was a very good opportunity to talk to the department representatives about this and understand how this will factor into the necessary biosecurity services into the future. Thank you, minister, for this good legislation; it has raised concerns. On behalf of stakeholders who have communicated with me directly back home in the Barkly, and also the Territory Labor team as we have discussed through Caucus and our various communications, the cost-of-living argument has to be taken into account not only for those good folk who live in town, but also those great people who are on the front line, pioneering industry within the Territory.
You definitely have the privileged position of being able to communicate directly with your federal Liberal National Coalition counterparts in Canberra, so we have to get the best deal for the Territory. We also have to be on the front line in biosecurity. The Berrimah Farm establishment is world-class. I learned a great deal there.
Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Territory Labor opposition, I thank the minister, and best wishes for the legislation.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I also support this bill. It is probably one of the smallest bills you will ever see, but it is an important one. I should also thank the minister for allowing us to go to Berrimah Farm. I have not been there for a little while. I reminisce when I go there, as I remember the days when it grew lots of vegetables and had field days and I would bring people in from communities to look at what was going on. Those days are definitely well gone.
It was good to go to the veterinary health section – especially when you agree to buy two brown chooks. I felt right at home. They were wrecking the garden mulch at the front, trying to find some water to drink, but, yes, I did say hello to them and they were very pleased someone was paying them some attention ...
Mr McCarthy: You did more than say hello to them.
Mr WOOD: I picked them up and scratched their backs.
It was great to go there and look at what is happening in the animal biosecurity section. As the member for Barkly said, we went to look at banana freckle.
It was interesting to see that the banana freckle headquarters – if you can call it that – is in a building called the Clem Benson Building. I knew Clem Benson when I first came to the Northern Territory as a primary industry extension officer. He was one of the best, a person full of knowledge about how to grow things in the Northern Territory, and an expert on delivering that knowledge to people on the ground. He would have travelled the Territory far and wide to just about every community, trying to help people with their gardens and encouraging the horticulture industry in the Northern Territory. It was nice to see that building named after him.
The discussion today is not so much about bananas, although, as the minister said in his second reading speech, the bill, which we know is to enable fees to be collected for services provided by the Animal Biosecurity Branch, brings it into parity with the plant biosecurity sector and other industries within the Northern Territory.
Being a person with a horticulture background, I would hate to see discrimination. This brings the agriculture sector in line with the horticultural section, which is good. We cannot emphasise biosecurity any more than we have to. Look at the bees featured in the newspaper the other day. There was a lot of discussion in this House about bringing in bees from Western Australia. That discussion was pretty fiery at times. Local bee keepers were concerned the introduction of bees from some parts of Western Australia could affect the quality of bees in the Northern Territory. You see how important it is when – according to the NT News – we are looking at the possibility of exporting bees from the Northern Territory to the United States, which has, for many years …
Mr Gunner: Based on the ABC story.
Mr WOOD: I will rephrase that. Cross out ‘NT News’ and replace with ‘the media’. I do not want to be biased. The media has said there are possibilities for our bees in the Northern Territory to be exported to the United States, which has been devastated by various diseases. If you have any idea about horticulture, you will know horticultural industries are very much dependent on bees. Pollination is what gives you the good crop you need.
Biosecurity is important. If it means the people who produce that product have to pay something towards it, that is only fair, as long as charges are fair. I heard many complaints from the nursery industry about the charges on the movement of plants, especially into Western Australia. Western Australia will not allow any plants in unless they have a big tick. To get that big tick, you have to have someone check that those plants will not take any pests and diseases into Western Australia.
The crux of this debate is about a charge. The issue that goes with that charge is how much. As the member for Barkly said, if the federal government is also whacking on a charge, if excise is making fuel more expensive, then it makes us less competitive. Whilst I understand the reasons, we have to be conscious of those charges being reasonable.
One of the other areas I noted when I was with the member for Barkly at the veterinary laboratories was the discussion about live exports, and that various countries have different requirements. It is not as though you can send your cattle to this country and say it has been checked. There will be other countries – we send meat and live animals to other places – which have specific requirements. Whether they are real or not is not the point. If you want to get your product into that particular country, then you are required to give a certification they are free from – in one of the areas we were discussing it is bluetongue, especially to China. The minister, when discussing this issue the other day when he made a statement on agriculture in the parliament, mentioned the possible live export of cattle to China.
We learned at the laboratories the other day that there are parts of the Territory from where China will not accept cattle – above a certain line which is roughly about Tennant Creek. We found that line moves up and down according to the weather conditions of that year. My understanding from what we were told is that below a certain line in the Territory there is no problem with bluetongue, but above that, because of the mites, there is a risk the cattle could carry bluetongue. Even though it is not bluetongue in the sense of causing any problems with the animal, people see it as a potential risk and do not want to have cattle from a particular area.
Of course, to enable our cattle to be exported, someone has to do all the work to find out what stations are in and what stations are out. Someone has to be paid to check those details. That is a cost. If the industry wants to export to China then we are going to have to spend money on making sure where those cattle come from is no risk to the Chinese market. Whether that is a perceived risk or a real risk is not the argument. The argument is if that is what that country wants, and you want to sell cattle there, then you need to be sure they have the right biosecurity check.
That is why this debate today is about more than just a fee; it is about developing industries in the Northern Territory which can be part of the economic growth. I will say it – we are open for business in agriculture in the Northern Territory. However, we do not want to go down a path of headlong into being open for business but not carrying out all the right controls that need to be done to ensure it is sustainable. In other words, in a hurry to look like we are developing the north, we have not done the checks and balances that make sure the markets are sustainable well into the future. That is really important when we are doing this.
That is what we saw at the laboratory. We saw people who are making sure. They are not politicians. I had a feeling – and I cannot speak for the member for Barkly – those people were professionals who were dedicated to making sure we could open up markets, and we know those markets would be sustainable into the future because we have done all the right checks and balances. We saw professional people there who knew their job. That is what impresses you at times. To get away from this strange environment we live in here and see the people on the ground who really know what they are talking about is refreshing. It is great we have those people in the Northern Territory because, without them, we do not get good biosecurity.
I know I am nearly running out of time, but we have the abattoir. I do not know how these charges necessarily fit into that facility. If they want to export, naturally there will be biosecurity checks which have to be in place. The abattoir, I imagine, will be regularly inspected. Whether it is by the Department of Primary Industry or by the Department of Health, I am not sure. Again, I imagine there will be biosecurity checks on that facility, because we need to make sure our meat is clean.
Anyone who has studied some of the problems with providing meat to Japan in years gone by, know, Endosulfan was used on cotton plantations in parts of Queensland and New South Wales. Thankfully, I do not think Endosulfan is used anymore because most people grow GM cotton. There were traces of Endosulfan in meat that went to Japan, and that killed our market for quite a while.
Again, we need to have a system where we can ensure the quality of meat, livestock, or whatever goes overseas or even to our own markets, is top quality and does not have any of these chemicals or diseases in it that could ruin this market into the future.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this forward. Maybe one day he could make a statement on biosecurity. It would be worth listening to, not just for the animal industry but for the plant industry as well.
Debate suspended.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery of the family of Albert Borella VC: Mr Rowan Borella, his son; Mrs Mary Borella, Rowan’s wife; and Mr Richard Borella, his grandson; accompanied by Dr Tom Lewis OAM. On behalf of honourable members, I welcome you to Parliament House today and to the Chamber. Welcome one and all.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr WOOD (Nelson)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition not conforming with standing orders from 1048 petitioners opposing to any suburban development in the Holtze/Howard Springs area. I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
Continued from earlier this day.
Mrs PRICE (Community Services): Madam Speaker, I contribute to debate of the Livestock Amendment Bill introduced by my colleague, the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries.
The purpose of this bill is to provide for the introduction of animal biosecurity fees. This bill brings the Northern Territory in line with other states and the principle of user contribution by introducing a user-pays system through the collection of fees for cattle tick inspections and horse spraying based on $1 per head of cattle. To date, all these services have been free and fully subsidised by the Northern Territory government.
I understand, minister, that consultation with key industry groups and the users has already occurred, and the majority was aware of the need for a user-pays system for these essential services.
These services are essential to conduct local, interstate, and international export trade, and are a legitimate business cost. More importantly, they are also required to protect our fantastic livestock industry through reducing the risk of entry or spread of significant animal diseases. The services include government certification and inspection services, and local, interstate and international export certification assurance for livestock and livestock products.
Biosecurity is critical in protecting our livestock industry, which brings $400m every year in direct benefits and $800m in indirect benefits, and, most importantly, local jobs for local people across the Territory.
Talking about jobs, member for Katherine, have you considered outsourcing these inspections? This would be an opportunity for developing local jobs for local people who could be authorised to provide those regulatory services. I can also see Aboriginal people in regional and remote areas being interested in getting involved in delivering these services.
I am speaking to this bill today because the NT livestock market is of importance to me, as a number of pastoral stations are located in my electorate of Stuart. I have in my electorate over 60 pastoral stations that run cattle, ranging from Ban Ban Springs in the north to Aileron and Muckaty Stations in the south. These stations total over 181 000 km2, nearly 50% of my electorate’s 384 000 km2. That is nearly three times the size of the state of Tasmania, three-quarters of the state of Victoria, and 75 times the size of the ACT.
Each time I visit a station I get to hear and witness amazing testimonies of our true blue bush heroes, who often live in incredibly harsh environments hundreds of kilometres from the nearest neighbour or urban area. Each of these stations has many stories to tell of their lives in the Territory. I put on record a number of their experiences about how the recent actions to suspend the live export market by the then Australian Labor government hurt them deeply.
The first is from Helen Armstrong from Glenorchy Station in the Stuart Plateau region near Katherine. Helen powerfully tells the story of the impact of the ban upon her family. I will directly quote Helen to do her story justice.
‘The live export ban came out of the blue. There was no warning, no time to prepare, and it rolled over us like a tsunami and swallowed us up. After the initial shock our thoughts turned to how we were to survive. Cattle we had agisted at Pell Station near Adelaide River went unsold, even though they had been booked to sell. There was no money coming in, but money still had to go out. We had to pay for fuel to pump water for the cattle, and for supplements to provide the cattle with the nutrients they needed to survive in the hard country.
‘We had to pay for veterinary care such as botulism vaccinations, tick control and weaning. All these things have been done for the animal welfare needs of our cattle. That meant we still had to employ people for yard work and branding, and the normal costs of running a cattle station still had to be spent, but there was no money coming in.
‘So we went to the bank and borrowed more money. We borrowed money just to run the station. We borrowed money to build more paddocks because we could not sell the cattle and they needed grass to eat. And they had to have water in those paddocks, so we borrowed money to find that too. All up, there was about $700 000 worth of unplanned borrowing due to the live export ban.
‘We were lucky in that our position before the ban was sound so we had equity to borrow on; many did not. Because our cattle are bred for the live export market, they are high-grade Brahman and medium framed. Our average mature cow is about 400 kg.
‘Some people managed to sell fat cows into eastern states’ meatworks, but the cut-off for the grid was 400 kg, so to fit the specifications they had to leave here 440 kg-plus. Our cattle were not heavy enough for this market so there was no money.
‘Then there was the abuse from the animal welfare people who wanted one thing: to shut live export down. They did not care that people in Indonesia were hungry, that workers had lost their jobs. They did not care that each feedlot supported thousands of people. They did not care that with no income, cattle here would starve, perish, die horrible lingering deaths that we would have to endure with them – every single one.
‘The psychological impacts on us were huge. We were full of despair for our future, for our cattle, for everything we had worked for, for so many years, but the animal activists did not care, they just abused us in social media, as well as the mainstream media, so we had to go to the media to defend ourselves. That was another psychological burden on top of others.
‘When we came to the end and the trade reopened we were like emotional zombies. We have still not fully recovered now.
‘Even though the trade reopened, money coming in was not enough. The numbers of cattle going out were so small it was difficult to place them and cattle were sold at an enormous discount. We sold steers for $1.45 per kilogram, which before the live export ban were worth more than $2 per kilogram. The market reopening in bigger numbers this year has been our salvation. It is still hard to place cattle because there are not enough boats to take them, but we have sold some cattle and hope to sell more. We still have the cattle unsold on Pell Station.
‘I do know that properly used original slaughter boxes used in Indonesia were humane. I have spoken with Geoffrey Brair, who trained people to operate them, and he trained them to make ropes for restraining. They mixed cement in plastic buckets with their feet and they had a facility that could slaughter cattle humanely, with no local electricity available. Unless I see a video of the time line with every second accounted for, that video is edited. I do not believe the videos filmed were normal practice. I believe the slaughtermen were encouraged to show how they would kill the animal if the head was not restrained as it was supposed to be and so on.
‘The cattle shivering, watching the ones ahead being slaughtered were symptomatic of suffering from transit tetany. ‘Whatever it takes’ is the motto of animal activists, and to them anything is permissible for their victory to destroy us. They simply do not care about the mental anguish and personal rolling trauma they inflicted on us or the thousands of families in Southeast Asia who languished without a job, food or pay whilst the Labor politicians got it wrong.
‘Even though the trade has resumed and heavier cattle are going to Vietnam in good numbers, because our Northern Territory politicians have worked so hard on resumption and developing new markets, confidence is still low. We will forever have the noose over our head that the government will just stop our trade on a whim.’
I encourage all members to watch the Cattle Scars documentary 2013-14, which can be found at www.cattlescars.com.au. The documentary tells the story of the impact of the live export shutdown from three perspectives. Produced in the Stuart Plateau region of the Northern Territory, it shows a Northern Territory Aboriginal stockman actively involved in live export and an Indonesian feedlot manager. The impacts on Helen and her family are very moving.
Another real life story from my electorate comes from Rohan and Sally Sullivan of Cave Creek Station. Luckily, and most likely because of good management, they advised they were not as badly affected by the suspension in the beginning as some of the other producers because they had already sold some cattle earlier in the year. Rohan advised that some producers were caught because they were in the process of their first sale for the year 2011 when the suspension was imposed. As it was late into the Wet Season, some producers could not get cattle out before the end of the season. Their last cattle sale had been October-November the previous year.
I am sure all members will agree it is pretty hard to keep a business going when there is no income for six months or more. The running costs do not stop. Rohan advised that the uncertainty created by the suspension was very stressful for people in that situation, with the impact made worse by the reduction – virtually halving – in permit numbers to Indonesia in the following two years.
While the Indonesian government has never said the reduction in permits was punishment for Australia suspending live exports, it does not take Einstein to figure out the Indonesians were pretty upset about the whole business. The reduction in permit numbers by the Indonesians was made worse by dry conditions in other parts of Australia, particularly Queensland, creating an oversupply of cattle on the domestic market in 2013, forcing prices down.
The year 2013 was a difficult year all round – income down, debt rising, and property values down. Cattle from northern Australia were being sent to abattoirs as far south as Victoria. The cost would be in excess $200 per head and could take several days, with spelling in between. The reduction in cattle numbers exported to Indonesia also meant shipping was disrupted and capacity was reduced. We can see it had a significant flow-on effect across whole transport and produce industries.
One more real life story from my electorate. This one involves Lauren from Elsey Station, which is in the northern part of Stuart near Mataranka. Lauren’s story is similar to the previous one. Due to cattle becoming too heavy, they had no market and no income, but their expenses still poured in – bank payments, school fees, cattle mustering, pump water, etcetera. The only way they could cover this was by increasing debt levels to cover costs, and some husbandry, which is planning for future supply not being carried out due to lack of funds.
Their cattle were worth nothing. At the same time, property values plummeted which affected their loans in assessing any equity they may have had – a double whammy. To add to the burden, as there was no confidence in the cattle market, there was no security to lend against.
The result was cascading negative effect across the local and Northern Territory economy. Cattle station owners stopped spending money, trying to preserve their precious cash reserves. This hurt local businesses in towns serving cattle stations, and they shut down to a large extent too. This in turn led to a loss of jobs across many sectors, which were so critical for regional and remote centres, and which I and this government fight for every day.
However, more importantly, one of the tangible effects was how the ban impacted the mental health of all people affected. We have all heard the stories in the media about suicides and self-harm. That increased amongst farmers during that period. Those are the long-lasting effects that linger and are burnt into their memories – the sadness that hangs over the cattle industry like a burnt red sky of a Dry Season sunset.
Lauren reports that she and her family were lucky, as they had developed another business on the side that propped up their cattle business. But, the ban did cost them a large amount of money. However, there are so many others who simply gave up and left.
While this does go over some old ground, I thought it was important those stories are told. I was not in parliament during the peak of the ban and its effects, but my constituents tell me they are still ongoing and lasting. By me airing some of these today, I hope it commences or assists in their healing process.
I, the minister and the Country Liberals government, are proud supporters of the Northern Territory’s pastoralists. We have worked hard to help restore and rebuild this iconic industry.
While no one ever likes having to pay new or increased fees, it is hard to argue against biosecurity as it is critical for the ongoing protection of our livestock industry. We need to maintain our robust system.
Madam Speaker, I support this bill and urge every member to not forget the people who had lasting damage done to them by that stupid Labor ban.
Mr BARRETT (Blain): Madam Speaker, the cattle industry is a very important part of the Northern Territory’s fabric which, with mining, has been the backbone of the Northern Territory economy since shortly after settlement. Cattle stations, at times, were larger than whole countries in Europe, and the romance and nostalgia has been a part of making the culture of the Northern Territory what it is today.
I was recently at the Barkly Beef Awards night and it brought home to me that so many young Territorians are in love with the outback. The lifestyle they lead is not possible anywhere else in the world and they love it; it is like We of the Never Never. They live in the highs and the lows of the industry, work hard in a hot, dry land, and the Territory is proud of them.
The whole business chain for export and beef production is a great driver in the Northern Territory. In my time at the wharf, I enjoyed working with the cattlemen and women who operate this industry. Sometimes we moved cattle all night and in the rain. The characters I worked with – the staff on the shipping lines, truckies, wharfies, cattle buyers and exporters – opened my eyes to this very important industry.
Biosecurity is a very important factor in the business of moving cattle. The industry needs to be protected from offshore threats. We all remember the issues mad cow disease caused in Europe in the 1990s, and frequent issues that arose around the world due to foot and mouth disease. These threats would cause irreparable damage to this industry and, as such, we need to ensure resources are available to protect it.
All those I met in this industry are great, down-to-earth people who are great Territorians. We do not want to risk this issue damaging the industry anymore; we want to protect it.
The flipside of this is we need to ensure our own quality is the highest possible, and there is maintenance of the excellent reputation of the Territory product. The biosecurity fees will go some of the way to providing resources to manage this issue from two sides. The fees will be accumulated as animals move across various tick lines as follows: movement from the Parkhurst infected cattle zone to, or through, the infected zone, control zone or free zone will undertake clean inspection and supervise treatment with Amitraz; the movement from the Parkhurst infected zone to, or through, the control zones or free zones for horses will be clean inspection and a supervised treatment with Betacol; and movement from property to property within the Parkhurst infected zone will not incur restrictions.
At the cattle tick infected zone, movement from the infected zone to or through the control zone or the free zone will incur clean inspection and supervised treatment if necessary. The costs are currently borne by the department, and I see this fee not as an imposition to the industry but a protection of it.
The future of this industry in the Northern Territory is bright; there is scope for employment in regional areas. Territorians and others who love this lifestyle are characters with names like Boof, Lizard and Brumby. For all the romance of the Territory’s connection with the bush, it is vital we do what is necessary to protect our industry from biosecurity threats. I thank the minister for the legislation he has brought forward.
No one wants to see our brand damaged or animals destroyed. The thought of many cattle being destroyed – which has happened at times mainly through drought – is terrible. It is not just the economic cost, but the cost to the people on the land.
I remember at the wharf we recaptured an escaped bull. It had been sedated heavily and, being disorientated, it had jumped into the sea over a rock wall. The animal swam back to shore but could not get out. I sat at the edge of the water that night with a soft sling around the animal’s head keeping it out of the water. I was sitting there calming the bull down and speaking to it. That night I hoped we would be able to get it out and back to the yards. It became impossible to get the animal out of the water because we could not get the telescopic handler close enough. I sat with that animal while it was destroyed, and it made me feel pretty sad. I noted the cattle cockies also felt sad; they did not want to see the animal hurt. As we dragged his dead body out of the water that night there was not much joy.
It was not about the financial loss, but the beauty of the animal. That is why many of these guys do the job, they really like working with cattle; they are beautiful animals. I like cattle, there is a beauty about them which is something else.
I remember the disruption the live cattle export ban had on the people who worked in the industry. They felt they had been painted as being somehow responsible for the issues raised in other countries. They were appalled at that and felt they had been demonised by the Labor government and were suffering for someone else’s brutality.
If we ever saw an example of legislation designed to punish those doing the right thing, and not affect those who did the wrong thing, this was it. We do not want to see this industry affected in this way, or in any other negative ways, from diseases of the future. We do not want to see our cattle destroyed.
I remember when the Panama disease happened in the banana industry. We saw many hectares of bananas destroyed. Having seen animals destroyed, it is a terrible sight. I would hate to see that happen in the future to our great cattle industry.
Madam Speaker, I see this legislation as protecting the jobs of those people who love the work, the animals and the country they live on, and I hope we will all support this bill.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, I want to say a quick few words. I thank the minister for bringing this legislation through.
Yesterday, when he was talking about mining, I said the materials in mining are a resource for all Territorians. The cattle industry is a bit different in helping the Territory move forward. It can be compared to the renewable resources of the Territory, which are not something that belongs to all of us – much of the land does, which is Crown lease. The cattle industry is a renewable resource, so it is something we need to protect and move forward.
I note we will introduce some charges in biosecurity. I also note there will not be full cost recovery, which I fully support.
I am concerned about something that happened about eight or nine years ago under the previous government. It saw the error of its ways and did not do it again. I have raised this before in this House.
It privatised soil analysis for everyone who undertook soil analysis. I saw that as a major problem. I did not mind the privatisation of it as such, but I did mind that it was information we would lose forever. A way of doing that would be for soil analysis to have been tendered out to a private company and everyone have their soil analysis done through the one person. You could collate all of the information from one place so, as as government, we could monitor those soils and see what is happening with them. We now have people sending their soil for analysis to Victoria and Perth – everywhere – and I want to see that changed. It was not the fact of having to pay, it was that it was sent to private companies.
At the moment, with water analysis, you go in and pay, which I do not have a problem with. This is bringing everything into line.
The other thing that worries me a bit is the impact of pigs. I am not too sure it says in the bill that people need to bear it in mind regarding biosecurity. I have mentioned this in the House. The member for Barkly said there is a potential industry to round up all the pigs. I got a bit upset about that. The issue with pigs is they can carry many diseases. It could be total devastation on the cattle industry unless it is completely monitored. People need to realise that, while they are not paying a fee for one specific test which government does on their behalf, all of this information is critical to government. It has to monitor what diseases feral pigs have, which is very hard to control.
A classic example was the BTEC campaign for brucellosis in buffalo. There are many buffalo around, and I am not sure of the status of that. When people look at these things and know they will be charge, they need to take everything into account. It is not that they are buying an apple, they are ensuring the tree is fertilised. When you put that in context, the amount of money people will be paying for some of this information is minimal.
Madam Speaker, I am happy to support the legislation. I raise the concern that we do not privatise this willy-nilly in the longer term. I am sure the minister will agree that is not our intention.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I thank all members who have contributed to the debate on this bill. I thank all members for their support, particularly my colleagues on this side of the House. I also thank the opposition, particularly the member for Barkly for his support of this bill, as well as the member for Nelson. I also acknowledge that yesterday I had a very brief discussion with the member for Namatjira, and she indicated that members of the Palmer United Party will also support this bill.
I do not intend to spend too much time on my feet. This is a small amendment to the act which provides for the capacity to charge animal biosecurity fees. Someone commented this morning that this is probably the shortest amendment in the history of the parliament, but it is important.
I will cover off on a few of the things which were touched on by those members who contributed to the debate. One of the overriding issues the members for Barkly, Nelson, and Daly raised was the cost and the pressure on the bottom line that is associated, holistically, to the cattle industry. The point made was that every little item counts towards the cost of running a beast.
I want to put this into context. We expect this fee will amount to somewhere in the vicinity of $1 per tick inspection, or thereabouts. To do a bit of crude mathematics on that, if you look at a 300 kg beast at about $2 kg live weight for it, $1 represents about 0.16% of the value of that beast, which is minuscule.
I acknowledge we have had a bit of feedback from the cattle industry over this – it was consulted. I spoke with representatives from the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association. I was asked questions about it at their branch meeting at Katherine a few months ago, when I was able to indicate to them that this would be going ahead.
My message to industry and the NTCA is that there is a little quid pro quo in all of this. We are, effectively, asking for a small fee to partially recover some of the costs associated with tick inspections. The payback is the enormous amount of work this government is doing in support of the cattle industry. The industry has not seen so much support from a government for a very long time. On this side, we are primed to assist the industry, which we recognise as an extremely important part of the economy of the Northern Territory. If you look back in history, the Northern Territory was built not on the sheep’s back but the cow’s back. We recognise the importance of the cattle industry to the Northern Territory, not only for what it has contributed in the past, but what it is contributing now and, no doubt, will contribute into the future.
The member for Daly made a good point that this is a renewable resource, whereas with mining, once you have mined a commodity it is out of the ground, you cannot put it back and mine it again. Of course, cattle and all other produce which comes out of the primary industry sector is renewable, so we are very careful to guard that.
This is part of a greater biosecurity strategy, and we take that very seriously. We see it as critical to protecting not only our cattle sector in the NT, but other parts of the primary industry sector as well. The member for Nelson mentioned bees, which are very important. Perhaps we do not discuss that often enough, and it is not given the level of importance that it is due. Bees are extremely important to the Northern Territory’s horticulture industry, but also Australia and worldwide. The Northern Territory probably has the cleanest bees in Australia – we certainly know that – and probably the world.
The member for Nelson talked about ESCAS, but also about biosecurity arrangements with other countries. He mentioned that bluetongue is an issue. Bluetongue is a problem in the export of live animals out of bluetongue-affected areas into China. There is an amount of work being done on that by the Commonwealth government. They are working very closely with the Chinese government on the health protocols that will allow for cattle to come out of northern Australia into China. That work is ongoing. It is a process they have to go through. I should say bluetongue is not the entire health protocol. There are other parts of that health protocol that will need to be sorted out and established if we are to have that trade into China.
The new Coalition Commonwealth government already has a good track record of sorting these things out. Barnaby Joyce, the federal minister, the other day announced he has been at the forefront of establishing five new destinations for live animal trade with Australia. I commend him for that. That is an outstanding effort for a government that has been in for a relatively short time. The most recent is the Cambodian live cattle trade which he announced last week. We will be working very closely with the Commonwealth and, now, with the Live Exporters Association and the NTCA here, to be able to fill orders as they come through. Once all those protocols are established, we have ESCAS up and running in Cambodia and are confident of animal welfare outcomes, we will look at how we can trade with that country. I welcome that.
There is probably a whole bunch of other issues that was discussed. It is important to cover off on the fact that the biosecurity team within the department of Primary Industries does an outstanding job. That has already been mentioned. I fully concur with the comments which have been made by the members for Barkly and Nelson in that regard.
The entire Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries has a very focused way of dealing with primary industry now. We have resourced them well. We have restructured the department. We have changed some of the direction of the department to include looking at the economics of the primary sector across the Northern Territory, helping businesses become profitable, which is important. There has been an enormous amount of work done over many years. Very important work has been done on research and development in the primary industry sector, and now we are moving to a stage where we will help the industry commercialise some of research, which is a great positive step forward.
We have, in my view, an excellent, unprecedented relationship with the key stakeholders in the cattle sector in the Northern Territory: the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association and the Northern Territory Livestock Exporters Association. They have been right across all of the changes we are making to the industry, including this one. I also acknowledge the other organisations that are a part of the live trade: Livecorp obviously; ALEC which is the Australian Livestock Exporters’ Council; Meat & Livestock Australia; and, of course, the Commonwealth government, which has done an outstanding job in a short time under the leadership and stewardship of the new minister, Barnaby Joyce.
There was some mention about abattoir charges. The abattoir will, obviously, have its own handling charges. That is not associated with any of the charges government is looking at in this regard. That will be something they sort out with their buy/sell price and is really a matter for them. There will not be an additional tick charge to go into the abattoir or anything like that, as I am advised.
Madam Speaker, I once again thank members opposite for their support. I hope I have covered off on all the things members queried as they went through their speeches. Support for this bill is certainly appreciated.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Health): Madam Speaker, I present a statement of the Country Liberal government’s plan to get the number of Aboriginal Health Practitioners back on track.
Since taking on the health portfolio in March 2013, I have visited many remote communities across the Northern Territory. Immediately I noticed something has changed, and I have not been able to rest since. No longer do you see a senior Aboriginal Health Worker running a departmental health centre as they did at Areyonga. No longer do people tell me about the baby growth program at Ti Tree which relied on Aboriginal Health Workers to show mothers how to weigh and monitor the developmental milestones of their children. No longer do you hear about senior men running sexual health business within a health centre and in men’s areas of the community.
In the late 1990s, I was working at Alice Springs Hospital as a social worker. Aboriginal Health Workers were a critical element of the Health workforce. They worked as part of the multidisciplinary team with high-level clinical skills and additional roles and responsibilities as cultural brokers and facilitators.
Remote health services in Central Australia provided a national best practice model of primary healthcare which was delivered through Aboriginal Health Workers in remote communities. Many of my colleagues talked about working alongside Aboriginal Health Workers in remote health, community health, renal services and, of course, on the wards of Alice Springs Hospital and at the Central Australian Aboriginal Congress.
I recall a senior Aboriginal Health Worker at Docker River who was also a senior man for this country. He helped his community focus on their health, including the development of an early market garden. He led community-wide activities which promoted the health of the community. He supported many other Aboriginal Health Workers to develop strong clinical skills. It was just the way health was led in Docker River.
I often wonder how many very experienced Aboriginal Health Workers no longer feel able to meet the changing requirements, and no longer work in the health centres. Are they still out there? This led me to do some research on the number of Aboriginal Health Practitioners employed in the Northern Territory, and I was alarmed by the findings. The number of Aboriginal Health Practitioners in the Department of Health has declined by 20% from 97 in 2003 to just 77 in 2013.
This trend is even more disturbing when you look at the Aboriginal Health Practitioners registration data. In 1986, there were 105 health workers registered. By 1999, this had increased to a high of 431. However, 15 years later, this trend had reversed. The number of Aboriginal Health Practitioners registered has fallen to 226 as at June 2014. This is a more than 40% drop, and I am worried that without action this profession could disappear altogether in the Northern Territory. This is of real concern. It is not just that we would lose a profession, we would lose a significant driver in improving Indigenous health. In losing Aboriginal Health Practitioners we also lose role models for children in communities, we reduce the opportunities for employment, and we reduce the capacity for communities to look after themselves. We have to do something; we need to get back on track.
A review in 2010 by the Northern Territory Department of Health and AMSANT identified this rapid decline and a number of steps to address it. However, the former Labor government did not undertake any practical steps to address it. To this day, I cannot understand why. Was it some form of misguided political correctness? They had all sorts of bureaucratic regional development plans, but something as basic as Aboriginal Health Practitioners was not worth the time. Despite this lack of attention and care by the former Labor government, there are some wonderful stories of some key health services that have made significant gains in this area.
In June, I visited Barunga to launch the Territory government’s pink bus. The bright pink bus, which is decorated with some tremendous Indigenous artwork on the side, is the first remote breast screening service in the Northern Territory. It will screen about 800 women this year and its success will rely heavily on the local health workers on the ground to encourage women to use the service. When the pink bus opened for business, former and current local health workers spent time talking with local women about the service. Without the wonderful Indigenous health practitioners at Barunga, this simply would have been a bright pink bus with visiting health specialists from Darwin, driving into town, telling you to experience a procedure that you may know nothing about – not a very encouraging atmosphere for women.
Aboriginal Health Practitioners are the best people to build local relationships and connections, and they play a significant and complex role as cultural brokers. Barunga, which is home to a Sunrise Health Service, is definitely the model of excellence when it comes to training and retaining Aboriginal Health Practitioners. The clinic has recruited and supported dozens of local health practitioners over the years. Joanne Berry, a senior Aboriginal Health Practitioner, has worked at the clinic for almost 20 years. She told me her role is challenging, but essential to encourage the community to engage with their health service.
What is behind their success at Barunga? The answer is support and valuing the role of Aboriginal Health Practitioners, one of 14 professions registered nationally by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency, known as AHPRA. Sunrise promotes the leadership roles of local Aboriginal Health Practitioners as part of the multidisciplinary health centre team. They are encouraged to keep training, and work in all areas of the clinic. The role of facilitator in getting families to engage in health business is valued, and this is the model that has sparked my interest.
People in communities, when I ask them what they want from their health service, frequently respond with the fundamental request of having Aboriginal people from their community and, in some cases, selected by their community, working in their health centre.
The Batchelor Institute offers a Certificate in Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander Primary Health Care Practice. It involves study and clinical work, and part of the Back on Track plan is to look at how we can make this training more accessible to remote Territorians who want to train as health practitioners.
On the Tiwi Islands, two Aboriginal Health Practitioners have just completed their course at the Batchelor Institute – Linda Marie Pupangamirri and Joseph Gideon Pangiraminni are two recent success stories. They are now registered Aboriginal Health Practitioners working for health clinics on the islands. They will be role models for their family and community. The Back on Track plan will ensure we hear many more success stories like theirs.
At Wadeye, a former Aboriginal Health Worker, Matthais Nemularuk, outlined that he wants people to feel comfortable to go into the health centre. To do this, he said community people must work there. To this man, having community people working in the Wadeye Health Centre is also a key step towards community control of their health centre.
I have committed to working with remote communities in both the Top End and Central Australia to transition their local health centres to community control. I have begun that journey with Maningrida and Wadeye.
I met the Thamarrurr Regional Authority Aboriginal Corporation at Wadeye and gave support to transferring the government-run health clinic to the community. Wadeye community leaders spoke about the community’s desire to lead their health service, as they did in the past when there was only one government nurse and more than 10 Aboriginal Health Workers. They talked about the importance of community people working in the health clinic and creating opportunities for local control. This includes pathways for young people to do work experience in the health centres and encourage them into study and employment. The community also feels that by managing the health clinic they will be able to coordinate all outside support services coming into Wadeye to better meet the health needs of the community.
In Maningrida, we have been talking with the Malabam Health Board about pathways to community control of their community health centre. This will involve joint planning with the health board, and is only part of our approach to encourage community control of health clinics. I believe greater levels of community control will help to engage local residents with their health service by providing a more responsive service. It will allow local people to be the ones making the decisions about their health service for the betterment of their families and community.
I am committed to helping any community that has similar ideas and aspirations about control of their health outcomes. I acknowledge that not all communities may want to have community control of their clinic, or they may want to have input into their service in different ways. It is important we talk to communities about their capabilities and goals to run an efficient and effective health service. It is part of my plan to get the NT back on track.
The Back on Track plan will initially concentrate on five communities. The first stage is to employ Aboriginal Health Practitioners in these communities, enrol community members in the training pathway, and support the attainment of qualifications that are suitable for registration as an Aboriginal Health Practitioner.
We are immediately starting with Wadeye and Papunya. The goal I have set for Wadeye is to have three Aboriginal Health Practitioners registered and employed in 12 months. The second target is to achieve an increase of 10% additional Aboriginal Health Practitioners registered or on a training pathway each year across the NT. This is an aggressive and ambitious plan, but there is no option other than to get back on track.
We have a real opportunity to match the improvements in closing the gap in the health status of Indigenous and non-Indigenous people by increasing the Aboriginal workforce. With only about 340 Aboriginal Health Practitioners registered nationally, there are not enough to meet the health needs of Aboriginal people nationwide.
If we want Aboriginal Health Practitioners to specialise in areas such as mental health and renal services, and to attract Aboriginal people to work in other areas of health such as Alcohol and Other Drugs and management, we must act now. The NT should be leading the nation on this.
I am chairing the Back on Track Action Taskforce to ensure I will have a stake in the solutions identified by those with experience in the area. This is not another talkfest, or another way for people to thump their chest to show what they are doing. Instead, I have asked people who have real experience and, to use a sporting expression, real skin in the game.
I have asked Marion Scrymgour, Chair of the Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance of the NT, to be on the task force, along with AMSANT CEO John Patterson. John and Marion have been in this area and seen its decline. I know they want to turn it around, so I look forward to getting their ideas. From Central Australia, I have asked Donna Ah Chee, the CEO of the Central Australian Aboriginal Congress, to also sit on the task force. She also has had many years’ experience.
Together we will concentrate on reaching these targets I have set. We will work closely through community leaders, health managers and current Aboriginal Health Practitioners. We need to know the communities and be able to work with them, adapting our policy needs to their practical situations to produce the results we all want.
I am committed to ensuring that representatives from the Department of Health visit communities which have been left without an Aboriginal Health Practitioner for years, to work with the community to encourage people to train as Aboriginal Health Practitioners. We need to know the barriers to successful outcomes, then we need to work to find ways through those barriers because, as far as I am concerned, the result is too important to too many people and communities.
This Territory government is not only committed to achieving these targets, but also to sharing our expertise to encourage all states to follow our lead. Getting more Aboriginal Health Practitioners into health clinics across all areas of remote Australia is an important national health issue for Indigenous people. The Northern Territory needs to lead on this. It needs to show the rest of Australia and all those international agencies that criticise us that there is a way; we are following it and it is working.
We cannot afford to let this fall by the wayside as Labor did. We cannot fail a single proportion of our population as Labor did. We cannot fail our remote areas as Labor did. If we are to see real progress in Indigenous health outcomes and economic opportunity in our remote communities, we must do this.
I am looking forward to standing in parliament next year and reporting to the Assembly that we are well and truly back on track in the Territory.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, I thank the Minister for Health for bringing this important statement to the House. There is no doubt we see plenty of statements through this parliament under the CLP, many to pad out the lack of legislation. Sometimes I am left shaking my head at the way they waste their time. However, with this statement, I applaud the minister on bringing it to the House. It is fantastic.
However, I must get something off my chest. I am disappointed to again receive a statement at 8 am in the morning. This is not conducive to allowing for enough time to do some in-depth research, to collect your thoughts and ensure you have a well-constructed contribution to this debate. It is disappointing that the government is not allowing time for that work to happen. It is an arrogant strategy, and does not show real respect for debate in this parliament.
There are some members here who are very talented at being able to talk absolute rubbish for 20 to 30 minutes, with little research or substance to back their comments. That is a real shame. I would rather do the hard yards, do the work, and check my facts and figures to ensure we go to a greater level of depth in debate in this parliament. This is what people expect of us and we are paid to do. Our constituents expect better. I had to get that off my chest, and I will launch back into the statement.
Again, I thank the minister for bringing it forward. I look forward to seeing progress with the Back on Track Action Taskforce in helping build the Aboriginal Health Practitioner workforce in the Northern Territory. Today she has placed on the record her efforts to drive improvements in this critical area of health in the Northern Territory. I completely support her work with the Back on Track task force, as I agree we need more Aboriginal Health Practitioners, and to grow this, critically, as part of the Territory’s workforce going into the future.
In the Territory, we have a long, proud history of Aboriginal Health Workers. I will use a little prop here where we have a nice little chart going back to 1870 up to 2013, highlighting some of the work that has been done in this area, and the many key health organisations and individuals who have worked in this vital field in the Northern Territory.
Having Aboriginal Health Practitioners is essential because it all comes back to the fact that when we see a health practitioner we want to know we can trust the person we are dealing with – someone we understand and who understands us. That is why our Aboriginal Health Practitioners and Aboriginal health organisations are so vital. We need to see this area continue to grow.
In improving health outcomes for Indigenous Territorians, those who are suffering the greatest burden of disease in our community, we must also acknowledge the work on the basis of what works and what does not. I will read the summary from the Closing the gap clearinghouse. What works? A review of actions addressing the social and economic determinants of Indigenous health. Some of the effective approaches are characterised by the following:
It shows how vital Aboriginal Health Practitioners really are. They work, they have proven they are essential to the Northern Territory. In my short time as shadow Health minister I have been fortunate to meet with many Aboriginal health organisations and see firsthand the work of those practitioners on the ground. There are many local people working within the community to serve their people and ensure they get access to better health services. They help build strong local connections between health services to help people have more confidence in seeking medical treatment and support, and they understand local health issues better than most.
I saw a clear example of that recently at a public hearing of the select committee on foetal alcohol spectrum disorder. One witness was a local Aboriginal Health Practitioner who had been doing the job for around 20 years in the Katherine region and had a depth of knowledge on the health of her communities, which demonstrated an insight into what was happening on the ground. She also had historical context of how things had been going. She had seen programs in communities come and go over the years. She had seen federal governments and Territory governments come and go. She had seen what worked and what did not, and what impacted health on the ground. She had answers on how to really help people in the area of FASD. It was an inspiring example of passion on the ground and what benefit there is in having career health workers in their communities delivering critical health services.
We know primary healthcare is central to addressing the high burden of chronic disease in the Northern Territory, particularly in our remote communities. It is also important to focus on health promotion and primary healthcare as an important activity to help reduce the need for emergency and acute care in our hospitals.
The recent example of the 10-year study by Dr Susan Thomas into diabetes treatment, reported by the AMA, found that every dollar spent on primary healthcare for Indigenous people with diabetes in the Northern Territory can save $13 in hospital treatment down the track. The investment up-front in primary healthcare is a no-brainer; it is a good investment. You will save money down the road and somebody will be in far better health.
Concern about primary healthcare in the Territory was an issue I raised when I had the opportunity to meet with Associate Professor Owler, President of the AMA. It was very clear the AMA view that it is always important to ensure you never drop the ball on primary healthcare, you keep the investment there and the work going, because ultimately you will save money down the road in the acute care side of health. Also, you will be adding to the quality of somebody’s life.
Ultimately, we would all agree we would rather see people not end up in hospital, full stop, especially when we see the immense pressure RDH is under with bed block. We know the government has finally agreed to open the medi-hotel for its intended purpose of supporting hospital patients in their transition to home after hospital or other medical treatment.
We welcome the minister’s support and commitment to primary healthcare and the role of Aboriginal Health Practitioners. However, we did not hear in this statement what she is doing to ensure adequate, ongoing funding to enable continued development of primary healthcare in the NT, and the development of our Indigenous workforce. For example, I still remain very sceptical of the $30m worth of cuts to primary healthcare we saw in the budget in the Territory. I hope we see that money come back in when we see the mid-year statement, as the commitment was given at estimates.
What is the government doing in relation to the Abbott government’s budget cuts to anti-smoking in health promotion work in the NT? Unbelievably, they have cut $130m over five years across Australia to anti-smoking health promotion through the Tackling Indigenous Smoking program.
This has happened despite research suggesting that 42% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Australia smoke daily, compared to 16% of non-Indigenous and, in some remote communities, smoking rates for Indigenous people can be as high as 80%. It also suggests that two-thirds of Indigenous women continue to smoke during pregnancy. Tobacco also contributes to about 80% of all lung cancers in Indigenous Australians, and around 39% of young people aged 15 to 24 are smoking daily.
Yet, we saw a cut to smoking programs that should be delivered on the ground to help address the issue and help people with their health issues. That is the work we need to do – say to the government, especially the Abbott government, those sort of cuts are just not on, particularly in the Territory. A recent report in the Sunday Territorian noted smokers are costing the NT more than $750m a year, let alone the damaging personal health outcomes. Aboriginal Health Practitioners engaged in anti-smoking campaigns must wonder about the future of their programs and their jobs following cuts to program budgets by the Abbott government.
In the NT, the hunt for $13.5m in departmental efficiencies this year, as part of then Treasurer Tollner’s budget cuts, is also hurting the health system. We have also seen this in addition to the $11m coming out of the budget this year for hospitals, as a result of Abbott’s health cuts to our hospital systems.
The Abbott government is using this year to conduct a major review of remote and Indigenous health programs. We need to know the minister and the government are working hard to influence that review and the work of that razor gang which has the dangerous capacity to undermine the important health gains that have been made in remote and Indigenous health in recent years in the NT and the Aboriginal health sector, leading the way to help close the gap in Indigenous health.
While we support the work the minister says she will do in developing our Indigenous health workforce, we also need her to be on the case, banging on the doors of her colleagues in Canberra, saying we need the continued support in the Territory of our health system, of primary healthcare and Indigenous healthcare, and to stop the cuts. The Territory is not the place to cut health funding. This is the very last place they should be cutting any funding, because we have the greatest need.
We are also pleased to see that John Patterson, Marion Scrymgour and Donna Ah Chee will be actively engaged in this task force to help build our Aboriginal health workforce. Recently, when I was in Katherine, I met with local Aboriginal community health organisations and heard about their work to develop Aboriginal Health Practitioners. People at Wurli-Wurlinjang told me how proud they were of the program and the successes they had within their workforce over the years. It was also clear that, given the emerging health issues in the region, every single one of these workers were needed to tackle the workload.
Issues they were dealing with included more presentations of cancers, given people are living longer, and important health promotion work, because prevention is better than cure. We would rather see people get in early, do the work and get those health messages right from day one.
We heard great concerns about the potential $7 GP tax the Abbott government has been looking at. Aboriginal health organisations have taken a very clear and sensible stance that they would not put that charge on to their clients, because they want to encourage people to see a GP and get help upfront. The Abbott government has decided to embark on an extremely dangerous path by discouraging people from going to the GP. It is a disgrace, and I sincerely hope we do not see that $7 GP tax introduced in this country, because it is a shame to see our health system going in that direction. People should be encouraged to go to the doctor and nip it in the bud, rather than ending up in the hospitals down the track. It is also appalling to see how it targets some of our poorest Australians and Territorians. Let us hope that does not go through.
There were also drug abuse issues, particularly regarding ice. I was horrified to hear stories about the emergence of that in the region. There was clearly a pressing need for more work to be done in the mental health space. One of the biggest issues raised with me was dealing with people’s emotional wellbeing. Mental health is one of the biggest issues in the Territory, and our Aboriginal Health Workers can do a great job in helping in that area.
The minister fully appreciates the immense health challenges in the NT. I appreciate she does not have an easy job, but that is part and parcel of being in government. She has a real opportunity to make a difference as she has her hands on the controls. I am glad to see she is actively seeking to work with this task force and make a real difference to the future of the Indigenous health workforce.
Again, I have to stress an important part of this is strong advocacy to your counterparts in Canberra, sending a very clear message that cutting health programs and support in the Northern Territory is not on. They are targeting the wrong jurisdiction in taking money from Territory hospitals, health systems and health programs. This is a place that needs the most support to tackle the horrendous issues we have in health. We need to see a strong stance and lead taken by the minister, the Treasurer and the Chief Minister towards Canberra to say it should not touch the Territory’s health money, should reinstate it, and keep supporting us because we need it. But, enough of Canberra.
This statement is not only about government and going into the argy-bargy of federal and Territory funding arrangements, etcetera, it is also about acknowledging and celebrating the roles Aboriginal Health Practitioners have had in our Territory health system for a very long time, and will do for a very long time into the future.
We sadly hear, from time to time, stories of misunderstandings, sometimes serious, affecting healthcare, particularly in strong cross-cultural settings, as often is the case in the Northern Territory, with patients, nurses and doctors often frustrated by communication issues between health professionals and patients. We all know how important it is in our own dealings with the health system that we have trust and confidence in the people we speak to when we receive healthcare. We increasingly understand the need for health providers to understand the social and environmental factors affecting their patient’s health outcomes, how they can work with the patient’s family and, where appropriate, how they can work with their community to support better health outcomes in the Territory.
These are all areas where Aboriginal Health Practitioners consistently value add and contribute to better health outcomes wherever they work. They provide often crucial insights and continuity of care at the local level, with other specialist medical practitioners and health professionals coming and going over the years. We should not forget the priceless value our Indigenous health practitioners have added to the professional development of otherwise highly-trained medical workers. These are the health workers who go out to work in the Territory. Many people who come to the Territory have not been here for a long time, and having the local health professional on the ground, putting things into context, will make a huge difference.
In this statement, the minister said Labor ran down, whether by neglect or design, our network of Indigenous health practitioners. We reject that, but we agree we need new focus and investment in recruitment, retention and professional development of a strong Indigenous health workforce, working in both primary and acute care across the Northern Territory’s healthcare system.
We would like to hear a bit more from the government and the minister about what work they are doing to develop the Indigenous health practitioners’ training and professional development packages, including remote education opportunities in our higher education institutions. We would like to hear more of Indigenous health-related vocational training and traineeships to grow and renew our workforce. We would like to hear of innovation in new health-related school-based apprenticeships in our remote communities. We want to see scholarships and financial support for local training and for current and new Indigenous health practitioners.
We would like to hear more about the plans to grow our health programs within the Territory, so we know we are building strong local Territory plans and programs to protect us in some ways from Tony Abbott’s razor gang and the approach he is taking to health in this country. We need to fight for every dollar. Unfortunately, we are not doing too well in that fight at the moment, so it is essential we have good, strong, local programs and investment to ensure when Canberra changes its mind we are protected and are still delivering the health programs we need.
We need to hear more about the Minister for Health’s new initiatives in mental health and wellbeing, with a strong focus on employment and development of an Indigenous workforce in this critical space. We also would like to find out a bit more about what is happening within housing for locally-engaged remote health workers in those communities.
Our Indigenous health workers are legends in their home communities and the health sector more generally. How many times have they helped medical practitioners get the right diagnosis? How many times have they helped save a life and made a critical early intervention in treating disease and disability? They personify the ethics and values we all want to see and promote in our health system, let alone broader community life. We acknowledge their profound personal commitment to better healthcare in the Territory.
We support the further development of Aboriginal-controlled health centres in the NT, but will be very alert to any signs that government will walk away from its accountability for health expenditure and outcomes in the Territory.
We support the minister in her endeavours, but we want to see real success in growing and developing primary healthcare in the NT. As we grow our workforce, we continue to improve access to healthcare for all Territorians. We do not want to lose important health gains in recent years. We want to ensure all Territorians, no matter where they live, have access to the healthcare and support they deserve. Our Aboriginal Health Practitioners are vital in doing this.
Madam Speaker, I hope to see some genuine success in building the numbers of our Aboriginal health workforce on the ground in the Territory. I thank the minister again for bringing this very important statement to the House.
Mr CONLAN (Central Australia): Madam Speaker, I thank the shadow minister for her support of this statement, and the Minister for Health for bringing it to the House today. It is extremely important.
I spent five years as shadow Health minister, so I am very keen to contribute to the debate. We have the previous Health minister – I am not sure what he is these days, shadow Tourism. Is he still Tourism shadow? You would not really know it, but I think he still holds the portfolio of shadow Tourism minister at least. He is still in this Chamber, but has announced his retirement. He has had a reasonable career, but I do not think Health is an area he will look back on, or will be fondly remembered for, because he presided over many of the failures the Country Liberals government is now trying to right.
I support the statement. It is about getting Aboriginal Health Practitioners back on track. Some communities, particularly in Central Australia, have been left without Aboriginal Health Practitioners for many years. It is sad for those people who could have had those jobs. Also, a very serious situation was left as a result of that void in those communities. There is a direct impact on the success of the local health clinics and, of course, the relationships those communities have with their health services. It is intrinsic, by virtue of that relationship, that we see better health outcomes.
The decline in numbers of Aboriginal health clinics is of great concern – a 20% drop in the Northern Territory NTG-run health clinics. Across the board the statement suggests the figures are even higher. We have gone from 431 registered practitioners to 226. Labor members should hang their heads in shame as a result of that. Either way, it has been left, once again, to the Country Liberals government to fix this wrong. I believe it is lucky for remote parts of the Northern Territory that this government has been elected because we have a strong commitment to the bush. Contrary to what is being run in this parliament and in the media, the government is very committed to remote and regional parts of the Northern Territory, as we are to urban parts of the Northern Territory.
Let us have a snapshot at some of the programs and completed initiatives of the Giles Country Liberals government. Palmerston hospital is progressing. You may remember this was considered a cruel farce by the previous government. A Labor Health minister, the previous member for Johnston, indicated at the 2008 election that anyone who committed to building a hospital in Palmerston – it was a ‘cruel farce’ were his words. However, this government has committed to a Palmerston hospital and it will be delivered for the people of the Northern Territory.
The Patient Assistance Travel Scheme was a real bugbear of mine for many years as shadow Health minister. An amount of $30-odd a night to travel was grossly insufficient. That scheme has been increased and subsidies for Territory families travelling interstate for medical reasons are now much better.
Cardiac surgery patients in Darwin and Alice Springs no longer need to travel interstate for CT coronary angiograms and angioplasty. It is a pretty simple operation. It was an election commitment by the Country Liberals in 2012, and I am pleased to say we have now completed that.
There is $4.6m for an additional 400 elective surgeries. Remember, the previous Health minister in the Henderson Labor government presided over some of the worst elective surgery waiting lists in the country. He was handed that baton by the previous, previous minister – one of the 141 ministerial reshuffles from the member for Johnston to the member for Casuarina – and both left a legacy in the Territory of extraordinarily long elective surgery wait times.
The Royal Darwin Hospital upgrades to the tune of around $22m and the brand new emergency department in Alice Springs to the value of $24.9m were completed under this government …
A member interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: Yes, there is no doubt about it. I know it is a touchy subject, but you did commit $9m, which fell short. If it was not for the Commonwealth government, you would have reached nowhere near it. We watched that with great interest unfold in Central Australia as the previous Chief Minister, Paul Henderson, went from one disaster to another trying to deliver an Alice Springs emergency department. If it was not for the Commonwealth government at the time, we would still be without an emergency department in Alice Springs. Nevertheless, it was signed off by this current government.
Alcohol mandatory treatment has been one of the benchmarks and great success stories of the Giles Country Liberals government. That is a small snapshot of this government’s commitment to health outcomes across the Northern Territory and, in this case in particular, through remote parts of the Territory.
Encouraging more remote Territorians to access health services is a key to improving their health outcomes. It goes hand-in-hand with providing improved housing – I heard housing mentioned somewhere in the shadow’s speech. Encouraging more people to front up to these clinics is always a challenge; it will never be easy. I do not think we will get everyone who requires a health check or if someone is feeling a bit crook to front up to some of these remote clinics . It is a challenge, has always been a challenge, and will continue to be so. We want to try to close that gap as much as possible.
Countless studies and research have shown that overcrowding in remote parts of the Northern Territory is a major reason for the spread of disease there. Overcrowding in public housing is a huge problem in the Northern Territory. It is, again, a legacy left to us by the previous government. However, in fairness it has always been an issue across the Northern Territory. We are a victim of our circumstance. Since coming into government, the Country Liberal Party has attempted – and we are still trying very hard – to fix Labor’s mess in the bush with regard to housing.
Let us look at some of the things we have done. Indigenous home ownership is a brand new policy announced by this government. With the support of the Chief Minister and the Department of Housing, we were able to develop a policy to allow Indigenous people to own their own homes. It is a fantastic initiative …
Mr Wood: The Tiwi Islands have been doing it for the last five years.
Mr CONLAN: Member for Nelson, I am not sure why you would not support it or why you do not like it, but there are 11 expressions of interest. Who knows whether all 11 people will be approved finance. I am not sure ...
Mr Wood: I am supportive of it. I am saying it was brought in by the previous government.
Mr CONLAN: Okay, I am very pleased to hear that you are supportive of it. It is a groundbreaking policy, and for the first time Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory have a real chance of owning their own home. This policy is a game changer for people living in the bush, providing them with the opportunity to purchase their own home. It is a no-brainer – the policy needed to be developed and was developed by the Giles Country Liberals government. We are very proud of that and very excited to see 11 expressions of interest thus far, only eight weeks or so into the program.
Remote housing contracts is a good one. There has been a fair bit of criticism, misinformation and scaremongering around remote housing contracts ...
Mr Wood: I am wondering whether we are talking about health workers.
Mr CONLAN: Again, the member for Nelson does not like efficiency. He does not seek a brief, or ask a question; he just sits and carps from the sidelines in the peanut gallery, which is what he has done for the last 11 years in this place. Whenever he had a chance to make a change or an opportunity to do something he never did. But he does not like remote housing contracts.
Let us look at some of the remote tenancy management housing contracts …
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I have listened to this for quite a while – digression. The subject is about Aboriginal Health Practitioners.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, if you could just keep to the topic, please.
Mr CONLAN: With respect, overcrowding in public housing is extremely relevant. In fact, it was raised by the shadow. Member for Nelson, you might be getting a bit of a touch up on the way through in my response to this statement. I suggest you take it. If you want to give it you have to take it. Nevertheless, I will leave you out of it if you do not like it.
I am talking about remote housing tenancy contracts and how these sorts of opportunities provide better health outcomes. It is not a long bow or a stretch – people who work are in a better position to manage their own health outcomes. Would you not say having a job is a healthy outcome? It provides you with greater opportunities in life. The more opportunities that present, the more capacity we have to manage better health outcomes. It is pretty clear.
Remote housing tenancy contracts have improved Indigenous employment in the bush. It goes to the very heart of it. Indigenous employment is a key factor in providing a way through some of the issues facing remote Territorians who are some of the most vulnerable. The huge amount of unemployment we see contributes directly to poor health outcomes. It is clear, and I do not need to be a rocket scientist to convince you of that; it is a no-brainer. In the bush, 72% of remote housing tenancy contractors are Indigenous. If someone wants to identify as Indigenous or not, that is a matter for them. For those who do, we have the figure of 72% Indigenous employment in the bush as a result of those remote housing tenancy contracts.
It is also worth pointing out that as a result of efficiencies we are seeing on the ground with those remote housing tenancy contracts, we are able to get taps, doors, toilets, bathrooms and bedrooms fixed at a much more cost effective price in a much speedier fashion. This, again, provides for a better living condition for those living in these remote properties. A better living condition is conducive to a better health outcome. There are a couple of areas with regard to remote housing tenancy contracts that directly improve people’s health outcomes. It is simple.
We will see a reduction in waiting lists. Overcrowding directly impacts on someone’s health. Overcrowding has been a big problem in the Northern Territory and will continue to be. Only this government has brought together some groundbreaking policy with regard to 2000 affordable homes. With the Real Housing for Growth policy we will see people transitioning from public housing into an affordable house and into the rental market. Public housing is freed up through those people transitioning out, and that reduces waiting lists and, therefore, overcrowding. It is simple.
Before I go on, I will put on the record some of the work that has been done in these remote communities with regard to housing. It is very relevant. It is not an opportunity for me to bang on about housing. I truly believe good, proper housing outcomes directly impact on good and proper health outcomes.
Look at what has been completed in the bush since August 2012. We have had new builds, rebuilds, functional upgrades and durable upgrades. In the Arafura region we had 15 new builds, 51 refurbishments and 114 durable upgrades. In the Arnhem region there have been 223 new builds, 184 rebuilds and refurbishments, and 58 durable upgrades. There is a difference between the two and we can go over that if you would like, but members probably already know. In the Namatjira electorate we have 43 new builds, 123 rebuilds and refurbishments, and 28 durable upgrades. Overall, from August 2012, across the Territory that is 383 new builds, 474 refurbishments, 131 functional upgrades and 477 durable upgrades.
As you can see, it is critical to have appropriate and affordable housing. Housing that is not squeezed due to long wait lists or overcrowding is a key component of health outcomes in remote parts of the Territory. There is an example of what this government is doing to ease some of that.
It is a Back on Track plan, and the Country Liberals government’s plan to improve health outcomes across the Northern Territory is a deep commitment through a number of initiatives.
I will talk about the Sport Voucher Scheme and people getting back into sport. Never before have we seen so many people participate in sport. There are grassroots sports programs across remote parts of the Northern Territory. Some of the communities in the remote parts of the Northern Territory have embraced this program like never before. The sports program, Active Healthy People, will reduce health problems, as well as increasing funding to our peak sporting bodies so they can deliver more of these programs in remote parts of the Territory.
As the Minister for Central Australia, I have been impressed by the impact this government has had on improving access to health services in Central Australia …
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 67: digression from the subject. The ministerial statement is called the Aboriginal Health Workers Back on Track Plan. We have now moved to every portfolio the minister has, and we have barely had one word about the statement.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, the statement is about Aboriginal Health Workers. If you could try to contain your comments to that subject please.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Speaker, Aboriginal Health Workers treat Aboriginal people in the bush in the clinics. The whole point of the subject is to increase the number of Aboriginal Health Workers so we can address Aboriginal health issues. I am talking very specifically about Aboriginal health issues and the measures this government is undertaking to decrease Aboriginal health issues and improve Aboriginal health outcomes. Aboriginal Health Workers is one measure. I am very sorry the member for Nelson is not interested in listening to my response to the statement, but a leopard does not change its spots.
The government’s suite of alcohol packages is protecting the community from an enormous amount of harm. The government’s initiatives, again, have been sensational. Through the temporary beat locations we are recording some of the lowest crime stats across the Northern Territory in decades. They have worked, as have the alcohol measures including the Alcohol Protection Orders, which have gone an enormous way to reducing Aboriginal health issues in the Territory.
The Alice Springs Hospital community recently celebrated the one-year anniversary of the new emergency department to cut those waiting lists. As I said, Labor presided over some of the longest waiting lists in the country at times. It is now up to the Country Liberals government to address that. The emergency department has recorded more than 43 000 attendances since the Country Liberals government built the larger facility in June last year. That is an enormous number of people presenting at the hospital but, again, we are a victim of our circumstance in the NT.
The government spent $391 000 in extra funding to support palliative respite care services. The hospital will receive $29.9m for continued fire protection, air conditioning and remediation works. I know that has been on the books for a long time, but this government is committed to continuing that program and delivering first-class health services in Central Australia. I have mentioned PATS is very important. We campaigned very hard on it, and I am pleased to say as a government we have delivered.
I am very pleased to support the statement and support Aboriginal Health Workers in remote parts of the Northern Territory. As I have highlighted, a raft of measures has been put in place by this government to support and deliver positive Aboriginal health outcomes. They are the most vulnerable of Territorians, due largely to the circumstances in which they live.
The government, through my portfolios of Sport and Recreation, Housing, and even Arts, is doing everything it possibly can to deliver the best outcomes so those people have the best chance of contributing meaningfully to life, but also having a happy and healthy life.
Madam Speaker, this statement and initiative by the Giles Country Liberals government, led by the Health Minister, is well overdue. There is a fair bit of work to do to get us back on track, but that is exactly what this government will be doing. It is what we continue to do, and it is what we intend on delivering.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I used to be accused of being the kingmaker. I have just heard the king of spin. By gee, that was a good one, I tell you! So many years’ experience as a shock jock on 8HA.
Be that as it may, I thank the minister for his review of every portfolio he has. It is important. I know, in all seriousness, he is concerned about the state of affairs when it comes to Aboriginal Health Practitioners.
I want to tell a little history. My wife was raised at Daly River Mission, and the nuns trained her in the local clinic. She then moved to Darwin to study as a nursing aide, which I do not think we have any more; they probably have some fancy name for it. She spent two years as a nursing aide. She spent some time in Sydney not doing that, then came back to Daly River where I happened to notice her and asked her if she would be my wife.
In the meantime, she also did some study in Sacred Heart Hospital Moreland in Melbourne. She was very good at her job. We moved to Bathurst Island for a little while, and when we went back to Daly River in 1981, she was one of the first Aboriginal Health Workers operating in the Northern Territory. It was around that time she went to Katherine. The Katherine region was the centre for training Aboriginal Health Workers at that stage. She worked for three years in the clinic at Nauiyu Nambiyu, which had obviously changed from the mission.
Aboriginal Health Practitioners play an important role in delivering health services in communities, because they are local people who understand and know their people, and who are comfortable working with them.
Although I do not have the figures from Charles Darwin University, I hope Aboriginal Health Practitioners do not just stay Aboriginal Health Practitioners but advance into nursing. That is where we have to put some effort. We need more Aboriginal doctors. Aboriginal people are now studying to be doctors. We might have some qualified in that area. It is not just about Aboriginal Health Practitioners, it is about promoting opportunities for Aboriginal people to be part of the health portfolio for the whole of the Northern Territory.
Many people in Royal Darwin Hospital are Aboriginal. Many people who turn up there, and probably at other hospitals in the Northern Territory, are Aboriginal – not all. That means we need to put more emphasis on making sure people are trained, can work with people they know, and those people are comfortable with the people treating them.
We have some great organisations in the Northern Territory. I met some people recently on my trip with the FASD committee. We met with Wurli-Wurlinjang, Sunrise, Katherine West Health Board, the health board in Tennant Creek and Congress in Alice Springs – organisations working directly with Aboriginal people in regard to health.
Madam Speaker, I am not here to debate whether the previous government did better than the present government. I believe Aboriginal Health Practitioners are a very important part of trying to improve the health of Indigenous people in the Northern Territory. Not only should we be promoting them, we should also be promoting opportunities for them to become nurses and doctors in the Northern Territory.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, I support the minister’s statement and her plan to increase the number of Aboriginal Health Workers to the level it was years ago. This government is right behind her in that regard.
For some history, I first came across Aboriginal Health Workers in the early 1980s when we first moved to the Territory and I was doing computer work with the Department of Health. They thought I should look at some of the health centres. I saw some in Central Australia. Yuendumu, Hermannsburg, Papunya and Santa Teresa are ones I specifically remember looking at. I looked at some in Katherine, although I cannot remember the names and am not sure if they are still there. I note the number of health clinics in the Territory has declined since 1997 and I am not sure why.
The thing that struck me at the end of last year when they held an awards ceremony for Aboriginal Health Practitioners outside was just about every speech referenced the fact that the number of health workers was declining and it would become an ongoing problem for us.
When you live in an Aboriginal community for any extended amount of time, you get to see what the people and their interactions are like. My observation is whenever an outsider comes into a community like Nauiyu, the local people are not inclined to be forthcoming in going to see those health workers. Every time I went there they would be free and I would get to see them, but that means many of the local people, because they are not keen on seeing outsiders, tend not to attend the clinic. Word gets around a community pretty quickly. I am sure the member for Arnhem would agree. Word soon spread around the Daly that the relief Aboriginal Health Workers said if you do not want to talk to them, you will have to stay away, so that has an impact on health.
Having been here so long, you see cycles in the public service and in just about everything in life. As with department names where they break them up and put them back together, they bring people into communities and separate them out. The same thing has happened with health centres. The minister has spoken about Wadeye and handing back to the community in a way to try to get more input. I applaud that because I have seen the cycle.
When I first moved to the Daly, the health clinic at Nauiyu was run by the community. I am going back a few years now, so I cannot remember how many Aboriginal Health Workers were there. One of the deals that was offered by the previous government – and I am not pointing the finger at them as it may have been the Commonwealth; I do not know all the facts – was to build a new clinic at Nauiyu. The deal was the Health department took over the provision of health services there. Rather than the community being given funding to run their own health centre, the deal was, ‘We will build you a new health clinic, but it will be run by the Health department’. I am not criticising the Health department either, but whether that contributed to the decline in the number of health workers at Nauiyu, I am not too sure. That has been a noticeable difference and I have never linked the two together, but it is an important point.
When you travel west of the Daly, you get to Peppimenarti. There is a health centre there which has its own management board. It is run by the community and employs Aboriginal Health Workers who make up probably half the staff. They are local people and that health clinic seems to function very well. When you travel there, you do not get any complaints from any of the staff or people. My observations have been that the community is healthier than some of the others. There are some facts we need to keep an eye on when we are talking about Aboriginal Health Workers.
The other thing is Batchelor Institute. Batchelor is in the Daly electorate, so I spend as much time as I can there. It is an institution I have a lot of time for in how it deals with a couple of things close to my heart. One is the health side, the Aboriginal Health Workers. Most of our Aboriginal Health Workers in the communities go through Batchelor, and the same with teachers. Minister Price obtained her teaching qualifications through Batchelor. Miriam Rose Baumann at Daly River also obtained hers there. They are two Indigenous women I have a lot of time and respect for.
The institute knows a lot about Indigenous people, the problems they have, and the difficulty they have being away from community, studying, overcrowding in houses – the previous speaker was talking about the housing problem. If people have to study, it adds to the difficulty for someone to become qualified in the Aboriginal health area, or any area. To be in a crowded house is very difficult.
I digress some more. I went to Nauiyu, and the deputy principal of the school there – I will not use his name – was a local Indigenous person. One of the criticisms he had was the school provided housing for teachers who came in from interstate, etcetera, and they were given two-bedroom units as part of their terms and conditions. He was the deputy principal of the school, and if he went home at night, he would have to be in a house of 20-odd people. To do any work at home was very hard. That gives you an idea of how hard it is to study.
My wife is a teacher, and I know teachers work very hard outside of hours. Add study into it and it is even more difficult.
The Batchelor Institute is one of the best things we have in the Northern Territory; it is part of CDU. They have a – I forget the word I should use …
A member: Campus.
Mr HIGGINS: They have a campus at Wadeye, and I believe it was one of the few not cut. They are also doing some training there with the local people in welding, home maintenance and things along those lines. It is something they need.
When they start to train Aboriginal Health Workers we must look more at training them in communities. The Batchelor Institute has a great deal of experience in that. We must talk to these people and see how it is done. The minister is very supportive of Batchelor Institute, and I place on the record that I am too.
I am very supportive of Aboriginal Health Workers, even though none of them will ever take blood from me. As you heard the other day, I do not give it up very easily and they get very nervous when they do it.
Madam Speaker, I fully support the statement.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I thank the Minister for Health for bringing this statement to the House. I am 100% supportive of the Back on Track plan. The more Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health workers or practitioners who complete a course and work in our remote and urban communities, the better the Territory will be.
I reiterate much of what has been said today already by the member for Wanguri, the minister in the statement, and a few others. It is important we employ local people from our communities – particularly our remote communities or even the urban communities like Bagot, 11 Mile or 15 Mile, etcetera – because they are role models. It is also an employment outcome to say, ‘There is a pathway for you to achieve and have some importance, not only in your life, but in your community as well’.
My mother, who trained as an Aboriginal Health Worker through Bagot community clinic, still works in that industry today. It is very important we encourage everyone in our communities – urban and remote – to participate in this. As a former lecturer of Batchelor Institute, I am 100% supportive of Batchelor Institute running the program through CDU. It is very important we have organisations and education institutions like Batchelor Institute able to run courses for Aboriginal people to give them every assistance and support they can in achieving what they want to do.
I am sure the member for Arnhem will talk about her great experience as a former health practitioner, so I am looking forward to that contribution from her. However, she would be fully aware, as I am fully aware through my mother, that the Aboriginal Health Practitioner role is a 24-hour job if you live in a community. Once you have a community person working in that role, it is not an 8.30 am to 4.30 pm job; it is whenever. If somebody has an injury, has a cut, a child is sick, or something has happened, they will knock on that door and go to somebody who they know can help them and they can trust to look after them and treat them respectfully, with the experience of making them feel better.
I say congratulations to two Tiwi people who recently graduated. It is excellent. They will be role models in the Tiwi. I hope this program is rolled out everywhere, and there are more enrolments in Batchelor Institute and we see a marked improvement. I place on the record that if we drop the ball in this space, we must move on and make sure we get this right.
The figures are 226 registered Aboriginal Health Practitioners in the Territory, and we have 340 nationally. So we are still doing okay. There might be a drop in numbers, but I am sure with this focus that will improve. With the three excellent – and I emphasise excellent – people who have been appointed – John Patterson, better known as Patto; Marion Scrymgour; and Donna Ah Chee – the minister has this right. They are probably three of the most experienced people in Aboriginal health. They will know the people to speak to, so they are the right people to head this campaign and be on this task force. As I said, the minister has this right.
One thing I would like to see, though – picking up on the statement – is that we have some equity employment entitlements for locally recruited health practitioners, compared with other health staff recruited from other places. I am talking about local Indigenous people in their communities given the same employment entitlements as somebody who has come from outside their community to work. That is one thing I ask the minister. I am sure the task force will have those opinions as well, or at least take that on as a recommendation from me.
Also, I raise the portability of conditions of service and leave entitlements. We need to facilitate the mobility of services. You might be a health worker in Wadeye, and have to go and stay in Peppimenarti or one of the Central Australian communities. Make some leeway and opportunity so somebody can work elsewhere – they might have to go on holidays or cultural business or, for family reasons, go to another community – and are able to move their employment entitlements and conditions of service and leave to that community.
I used to work at Batchelor Institute training Community Sport and Recreation officers from remote communities so they could run their own programs. In my experience, somebody would go away for cultural reasons, for a family death or something similar, and would lose their job. We need to have some flexibility around employment conditions if you want to get more Aboriginal Health Workers or Health Practitioners through the training and keep them employed. This is a very good opportunity for more employment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
Madam Speaker, as I said at the start, I thank the Minister for Health for bringing this on. I am 100% behind this. I hope, when she comes back into this Chamber in a year’s time, she will present a report saying there has been a massive increase in people starting Aboriginal Health Worker training, as Aboriginal Health Practitioners, through Batchelor. We all agree it is a great idea.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, I wish to speak about this very important issue. I also thank the minister very much for bringing this to this House. I cannot tell you how important the role of an Aboriginal Health Worker is, not only in communities but in an urban environment. I know that well, because, in 1990, I started work at the Port Hedland Town Council. In a town where there was a significant number of Indigenous people living in the area, there was not even an Aboriginal Health Worker working for the council. There was not even an Aboriginal environmental health worker working for the council.
You might say the Aboriginal Health Workers are very important, but everyone knows prevention is better than treatment. If you want to prevent health issues occurring in the communities, the best way to do that is by first engaging the Aboriginal environmental health workers and then the Aboriginal Health Workers. Many issues will be resolved at community level by the Aboriginal environmental health workers before they reach the clinic to be treated by the Aboriginal Health Workers.
When I finished working for the Health department in the Territory I worked for Danila Dilba Indigenous medical service as a clinic manager where I saw the importance of Aboriginal Health Workers. It was not only as health practitioners assisting doctors, but also as counsellors counselling people on health, family and child protection issues. I was very impressed. When I was sick and needed treatment, I would rather go to Danila Dilba and be treated by the Aboriginal Health Workers than go to one of the clinics where you pay and have to wait a significant period of time to be seen by a doctor.
I will also ignore the diatribe from the member for Greatorex who, as always, tried to rewrite history. Before the CLP came to power everything was hell, and after the CLP came to power, all of a sudden, we reached heaven. Everything done in the Territory happened after August 2012. He must have a short memory or was not in the Territory in 2001. In 2001, when we were training Aboriginal Health Workers at Danila Dilba, the Health department did not have its own Aboriginal Health Worker training and would poach our people by waving a carrot in front of them – a very big salary. Most of those were working for the mainstream Health department. They completely ignored the training needs of Aboriginal health organisations.
I believe the member for Arnhem can tell you about it because she is a trained Aboriginal Health Worker. She will tell you how many workers have come from the mainstream Health department in the past 10 years. Not only that, I maintain strong links with Aboriginal Health Workers to date. I recall when I was approached by them after the CLP government came to power and they were told any vacancy in remote clinics would be wiped out and not replaced. A number of Aboriginal Health Worker positions disappeared completely. That was done by the CLP government.
In addition, when I asked why in the Territory where one-third of the population is Indigenous and a significant number of people live in remote communities, we do not have Aboriginal Health Workers, the answer was, ‘The government has not allocated any money for Aboriginal Health Workers’. That is one of the reasons Batchelor does not train Aboriginal Health Workers.
In 1990 I taught at Pundulmurra college in Port Hedland where people from remote communities were trained in the basics of environmental health, and would go back to their communities and fix the water, the septic system, the sewerage, and go to the shops and talk to people about nutrition. All of a sudden, we saw an improvement in the health standards of the community.
To give you another example where I have personal experience, when I worked for the Territory Health department, one of the people who worked under me conducted an experiment on one of the communities. They registered what failed in every house. They wrote down everything such as whether there was hot water, the solar hot water system was working, the sewerage was working, the septic tank was working, and the road was bituminised.. They then looked at the health statistics at clinics. They got money from the Commonwealth and fixed the taps, the hot water system, the septic tanks, the toilets, bituminised the main road, and within a year, health problems had declined by 60%. That was done by Aboriginal Health Workers and Aboriginal environmental health workers.
I congratulate the minister for identifying and recognising the significance of Aboriginal Health Workers. However, let us make this statement not just say, ‘Look how good we are?’, let us make it a reality. Yes, you want to educate more Aboriginal Health Workers. Will these people have career pathways into the future or will they be stuck in the position of Aboriginal Health Worker forever?
What if we structure that program so people can start as Aboriginal Health Workers, and that education and experience is then recognised so they can become nurses? It would be a good idea, instead of having Aboriginal Health Workers only in remote clinics, to have Aboriginal nurses who come from the ranks of health workers.
Even better, before sending people into the remote communities to treat sick people, how about we train some Aboriginal environmental health workers, so they will go there, identify and rectify the health issues, and work with people on the ground to train them how to address these issues in order to prevent disease, rather than have to address these problems in the clinics later?
They can work together hand-in-hand and resolve many of the issues in remote communities and, in some cases, not only remote communities but urban communities. I will never forget, as a clinic manager, going out with a mobile team from Danila Dilba and not going far away from Darwin – just 11 km out – and looking at the living conditions of people in the camp you see as you go out of Darwin, passing the traffic lights near Palmerston. Some of the houses should have been condemned, but they were not. People live in these terrible conditions. The health workers from Danila Dilba put in the effort and told people how to look after these substandard houses, and we managed to alleviate many of the health problems.
The health problems were created because of the substandard houses and the conditions people had to live in. I remember very well the member for Fong Lim telling us that One Mile Dam was a hell hole when the environmental health workers – and I questioned it – told me the camp was in good condition. People made a lot of effort to improve the living conditions there. Can you imagine if we had Aboriginal environmental health workers working with communities, improving health conditions in remote communities?
The department loves this idea of Aboriginal Health Workers, because it can be a cheap substitute for nurses and other health professionals. I want you to go back and say, ‘Yes, we want Aboriginal Health Workers, but what about Aboriginal environmental health workers?’ If you want to address health issues, you have to make sure you prevent these problems to promote caring rather than treating.
Aboriginal Health Workers are fantastic and I support you 100%. I encourage you to look seriously at Aboriginal environmental health workers, then you will have the whole concept of Aboriginal Health Practitioners starting from the very beginning, from prevention, and having the people in the clinics to treat those diseases.
Ms LEE (Arnhem): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this statement to the House and congratulate her on taking the next step forward.
As all Health ministers – previous, past and present – would understand, it is hard work trying to understand remote health and the core issues Aboriginal Health Workers face in their day-to-day lives. Their job is not easy. They are faced with many challenges in the bush. Being an Aboriginal Health Practitioner for over nine years is a long time. They are your first point of contact; they work 24 hours a day and never have a break.
I have heard many members in this House contribute to this, but I never heard anybody touch on the core issues Aboriginal Health Practitioners face – the real problems.
The reason the majority of Aboriginal Health Workers do not exist anymore is, basically, the management and how the clinics are run. It is the team that is cutting them loose. They are not walking out of there because of the social issues and impacts of problems within the community; it is the team built into that clinic – the staffing – preventing them from going back and enjoying their work.
If you want to inspire Aboriginal people, you have to be straight with them and work with them properly. One of the biggest issues today and why many Aboriginal Health Workers are not interested in coming back into the clinic is because there is no support for them and no responsibilities given to them.
I heard the minister talk about Barunga clinic. The only reason Barunga clinic is one of the best-run clinics I have known – where I trained and worked in my profession – is because of the team we had there and the clinic manager. We built our work around honesty and the way we look at the community. We all had portfolios we were responsible for. Aboriginal Health Workers also stay on call, on a roster, and they are the first point of contact. RNs are always second. You are giving them the trust to work forward. You are giving them some responsibility, and that is all they need. That is the only way Aboriginal Health Workers will ever learn in their job. That is why many of them have given up over the years, because there is no more support and trust.
Maybe because they studied at Batchelor rather than university – English is better in one than the other when it comes to education. They are good at what they do. Mixing Aboriginal Health Workers with the modern Western society health works in an Aboriginal setting because they understand it better than anybody else. They can speak the local language and understand the family issues always happening around them. They understand the environment these kids and families live in. No one has touched on the issues Aboriginal Health Workers face.
I heard the member for Casuarina talk about Aboriginal environmental health practitioners. I have a different perspective to that. Aboriginal Health Practitioners do some of that work. Health promotion comes from a good team. Aboriginal Health Workers have been doing health promotion for years. That was part of my job when I was there. I had to go out with family groups – you cannot mix the whole community up. You cannot address a big group of women because they will not all agree with you. You have to go family by family. Our job was to go to each family and talk about health promotion. We had to go to the school and use our own health promotional material there.
There were trust issues with people from the department coming into the community who do not know – whether it is Sunrise Health or another organisation. They are not locals so of course the local people will not trust them. That is one of the biggest issues.
The big issues I found over the years were funding and Aboriginal health training. Training for Aboriginal Health Workers is vital. Most of them want to go further. Some of them are happy where they are. Some want to get to a senior Aboriginal Health Worker stage where they are comfortable. However, the funding always stops them from getting to that place and achieving the goals they need. It is hard for Aboriginal Health Workers in a remote area. They do not have as many resources as everybody else. They work hard at what they do, 24 hours a day. They are the first point of contact and they give their lives, sometimes, trying to save people.
They have attended road accidents and childbirths more than anybody I know. Most childbirths happen in communities, and Aboriginal Health Workers are there. Because they are mothers themselves they experienced it, they understand it, and they talk the young girls through it. It is common. That is the pride they live with – it is the trust. The numbers have dropped
I heard the member for Greatorex talk about housing. Housing for Aboriginal Health Practitioners is a big issue. RNs usually get the first preference on housing. For years there have been discussions around housing for Aboriginal Health Practitioners when they want to move around the place to upgrade their skills, etcetera. The minister talked about overcrowding and everything else. That is a big issue. But if he is talking about chronic disease, maybe he should refer to chronic disease, not disease spreading. There are family members who live very closely in these houses – they are not just anybody – and chronic disease is a big issue in the communities.
Some of the wording on certain issues is good. I congratulate the minister for the new breast screening bus. The ladies in Barunga enjoyed it. I was happy to be there on the day, and it was good. It is something that has never been done before, so it was interesting. It is pink, so the kids really liked it as well. Not only that, you are promoting healthy living with the kids, they feel comfortable. On the day they knew it was happening, the men stayed away from the bus, so it was good.
Many of the clinics now being built in remote areas have the culturally appropriate setting, so you have one side for males and the other for females. Culture is a big issue in remote communities, and if you do not understand the culture, then you do not understand the people. That is a good thing. That is from the past and present governments, so I will congratulate both of you for getting around that.
Shockingly, the numbers of Aboriginal Health Workers in the workforce have dropped. It was never a surprise to me; I always knew it would happen. To get there is a long road. Minister, it will be a hard one to crack. Health in remote areas has always been pretty hard. If you go to different areas, you will always have different perspectives from different Aboriginal Health Workers and managers. But it always comes down to the team and how it works. That is what brings the staff together and keeps them there. If you do not have that strong team support, then it will shatter. That is why many Aboriginal Health Workers resigned and will never come back.
However, it also comes down to housing. There is no support for housing, and it comes down to funding. There is no support for developing their career pathways. Many of them have talked about going into environmental health. Many have talked about counselling and palliative care. Many of them wanted to become registered nurses and go with RPL to do their medicine, but it is really hard because there are no facilities in remote community infrastructure. That is the biggest problem. They have to go away from their families for two to four weeks to study. It is hard on Aboriginal people who are used to being around a setting where they feel safe. When they go into an environment they do not know, it is scary for a first-timer.
I remember when I went to boarding school when I was 14; I cried all the way from the Central Arnhem turnoff to Darwin. Being away from my family was the biggest fear of my life, but I got used to it. I am used to it now. I still have little girls I leave home and I would love to go home and see them on the weekend as much as I want to. Sometimes I cannot and sometimes I can.
We make life choices. The sacrifices Aboriginal Health Workers make, to make everybody else’s lives on the community better, are something I will always commend them for. They are the most hard-working, devoted, dedicated, loyal workers to the core. They believe they are the saints, the healers, and they are. They have given their life and everything. Half of them have given up their family, had to bury their family, their children, and they continue to do their job. Some became really good counsellors over time. They could understand the situation better than anybody.
I also congratulate Donna Ah Chee, Marion Scrymgour and John Patterson on their appointment to the Back on Track Action Taskforce. It is great. You need grassroots people in this level as well so you have grassroots Aboriginal Health Practitioners talking about these issues. People have gone from the bottom of health all the way up, so they can relate to how everything is going and what should be done next, where we should go, and things like that. Congratulations to those three. It is a great appointment, and I believe they will do a great job. I am sure all the Aboriginal Health Workers will support them in their appointments.
The issue of Aboriginal Health Workers is a shady area to talk about. Aboriginal Health Workers have always been left in the dark too. You wonder why the numbers have gone down. They will continue to go down if the truth is not recognised. There are still some communities where health services are to be built, and that is the sad truth. There are some communities which already have good new health centres. The communities are really pushing for all this kind of infrastructure.
They are very supportive of Aboriginal Health Workers because they know they are the only thing they have left out there. They built that momentum. Because you are qualified, you cannot just walk into a clinic and that is your job for the rest of your life. If you do not have the trust of the community there is no way you can carry out your job. That is one of the core issues about Aboriginal Health Workers. If you do not receive the trust from the community there is no way you can do your job because no one will trust you to take blood – the little things that will help you develop into a better Aboriginal Health Worker.
Aboriginal Health Workers face a lot of criticism and are misunderstood most of the time. But they are and should be the core business. I have always said that. I was a facilitator as well. I went to Western Australia, South Australia and Queensland, training Aboriginal Health Practitioners for many years. I have realised in different states there are different regulations about what Aboriginal Health Workers can and cannot do. In the Northern Territory we are a privileged in what Aboriginal Health Workers can do. They take that responsibility on because I told them if they go to Queensland there is no way they can administer medication and stuff like that; a doctor has to do it. In the Northern Territory it is different; Aboriginal Health Workers can do that.
They have a CARPA manual like a bible they have to follow. It is really easy here for them and it is good. It is good the government recognises and promotes that a bit more because that is Aboriginal Health Workers’ passion when they get out there. Yes, the majority of them do not like seeing road accidents and stuff, but a few of us have the stomach to handle it.
The biggest issue is counselling for workers who go through that kind of trauma at work. There is no support for us with counselling and stuff like that, so that was a downside to the job. We had nobody to talk to. All we had was senior staff and the clinic managers.
If there is anything every health worker could give back – taking care of everybody, giving back to the community, giving your life, your love and everything is one of the biggest things you can do. It is like any lifesaving job; firefighters have the same ethics and morals at the end of the day. They are there to save lives and that is exactly what Aboriginal Health Workers do. It is the same as doctors and nurses at Royal Darwin Hospital. But we are the only ones doing primary health not secondary – that is the difference.
We work hard. Every health worker – I am not one anymore, but I can speak for them because it is a great privilege. I was one for a very long time. They work very hard at what they do.
Minister, I would be glad to see you go down this track. I will give you notes when you need them. There is nothing negative I can say about this because it is pretty good and I am looking forward to it. I really respect you so I am looking forward to what you can do in the next two years around health, especially remote health. I am sure all health workers are hoping for a better start.
Ms ANDERSON (Namatjira): Madam Speaker, I support the minister’s statement. I said when the minister received this portfolio if anyone can turn health around and check the closet as to what is missing in Aboriginal communities, or holistically in health, it would be this minister. She has had experience as a social worker at Alice Springs Hospital and has worked with Aboriginal Health Workers, Aboriginal interpreters and other social workers. She is very experienced in this field. It is fantastic, minister, that you are looking to bring this profession back because it is very important. It is a holistic approach to health.
These people are very important in this field because they are the people who have the first contact with any sick person who comes into the clinic. They live in the community, they speak the language, and might be next door neighbours to clients who face them at the clinic.
I take this opportunity to say happy birthday to a former health worker, who happens to be my daughter, Darelle. She was born on this day, thirty-something years ago. It is fantastic that she worked with the minister, not as an Aboriginal Health Worker, but as an Aboriginal liaison officer at the Alice Springs Hospital. It is a coincidence that you make this ministerial statement on her birthday. It brings back a lot of memories, because as she was growing up and working in this field, she had the opportunity to move into other areas. She saw the hardship the Aboriginal Health Workers went through, but all the good things they could do too. It gave her that transition to move into the area of the Aboriginal Interpreter Service and help our people understand.
It is so good to make sure this profession is back and operating to its full capacity and potential, because that is the vital link in the chain we need in the communities. These are the people who can say hello to the people and ask them in their own language why they bring their child to the clinic, or have discussions at a full council meeting about the problems the health services are encountering. I will go through some of it.
Some of our people can sit around all day with tiny little sores or boils and not think about going to the clinic. Then they will try to wake the nurse up at 9 pm for dressings for a boil. Those health workers are the ones who take all that information to meetings and say, ‘They have all day to come for a dressing at the clinic, do not wake these nurses up at 9 pm or 10 pm, because they work hard during the day doing important health work for our people, for the community, and looking after the people here. The last thing we want is you waking them up to get dressing for a boil, or because your child has a slight temperature.’
It is an education strategy this profession uses. When you look at health workers like Susan Abbott, who was a health worker for over 30 years – she worked in a community at Wallace Rockhole for many years without a doctor or nurse. A visiting nurse came in to give her backup and support. You have great health workers, as the minister knows, in the community of Hermannsburg/Ntaria – Marion Swift, Mary Anne Malbunka, Emslie Lankin and Renita Kantawarra.
Renita is so good she can do renal health as well; she is fantastic. She flies all the way to Gove to give her brother-in-law, Galarrwuy Yunupingu, a hand and put him on the dialysis machine. She stays there with the family and supports Margaret. She is fantastic.
These Aboriginal Health Workers can give the health profession stability – the clinics, nurses, doctors – they are the link. They bring the whole clinic atmosphere together. If there are angry clients then they are at the front saying, ‘We do not want you coming inside this clinic behaving like this. These concerns will be taken to the council. These people work too hard and it is not a place where you can abuse anyone.’ They are there to give their counterparts, the nurses and doctors, a great hand.
We have some fantastic nurses in Aboriginal communities, as you would know, minister. You have visited many communities in Central Australia. It is fantastic to see you do the road trips to ensure you give them that support as well, because it can be a lonely place for them to work in. It is great. You received a fantastic welcome at Hermannsburg and Titjikala when we went together.
You spoke in your speech – and the member for Arnhem also mentioned it – about the pink bus at Barunga. It amazes me that we have we not done this before. Why is it they have to wait for someone to discover it is necessary that it should happen for Aboriginal people on remote communities? The consistency and service at Barunga is what we now have to look to replicating in Central Australia and some of the Top End communities. The service has been given to the Barunga community so women can have their breasts examined for breast cancer, because it is a serious issue.
Talking about health in its entirety and holistically, we should have counselling services on remote Aboriginal communities for our kids who are on ganja and other drugs coming into our remote Aboriginal communities now like ice, heroin and cocaine, etcetera. We need to save our people from this ugliness. I have been affected terribly by our kids sniffing petrol. They did not have anywhere to go in the communities, or in Alice Springs, where they could get this counselling service. We will see the same thing with bigger drugs such as ice. We need to have our kids going to places where they can talk to people about their problems, because it is a lonely road for some and it affects many families.
I have been affected by my nieces and nephews being on ganja and other drugs, with my own son recently being admitted into hospital for overdosing on ice. It is a sad thing to see this happening, but we live in a society where we are growing rapidly and there are drugs being injected into our society by bad people who do not take into consideration what is happening and how they can destroy the lives of young people and families. We have to learn to cope with it. We can cope with it to a certain extent, but we need these facilities to give these young people a hand as well, so they have someone to talk to. It is because their head is so full of stuff they cannot see for themselves, and they need a hand and someone else to talk them through it.
I told someone that my sister was in a situation where she overdosed on tablets mixed with alcohol, only a couple of days ago. This is not something I am reporting because I have heard it; I am affected because it is my family members this is happening to. We need to look at health in its entirety and make sure these services are there for Aboriginal people to access. It should not be about what Labor can do and what the CLP can do. What is it that we are doing for Territorians, whether they are black or white? Are we getting the same services as Alice Springs, Darwin, Tennant Creek and Katherine? Of course we are not. We take the chance of living remotely. Yes, we understand we will not receive as many services as we should, but there should be some regional services available.
I heard the Minister for Tourism say, ‘We are doing a lot to support remote and rural Northern Territory’, and he named – I think I wrote down six or seven of the things he said are happening in remote and rural Northern Territory. There was the Palmerston hospital. That is not remote and rural, it is down the road. He talked about PATS and cardiac care. Some of my people access these services, but not to a great extent. It is not happening in the remote and rural Northern Territory, so he has his wires crossed as usual.
He also mentioned that the Alice Springs emergency service is fantastic for Alice Springs. But there are no huge services, apart from new clinics the Commonwealth has funded which have now come into the hands of the Country Liberal Party, such as the Hermannsburg clinic and the upgrades of Titjikala and Papunya which will happen soon. We need to make sure, instead of flogging each other across this Chamber, we talk about the services the bush is missing out on and how we can improve them.
It is great, minister, that you have picked on a service which could have gone unnoticed and disappeared. You have picked it up and said, ‘This is an important profession we need to look at’. I congratulate you and thank you for bringing this ministerial statement to the Chamber.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, likewise, I congratulate the minister on not only bringing the statement to the House, but the important and exciting work she is going to embark on. This is a very important element of community development and the development of the Northern Territory.
The statement was a good statement, but I just cannot get over the political slaps. I know where that stuff comes from. Having the privilege of sitting on that side where you sit, I used to see that stuff and skip over it. I suppose you can use it when you choose to. I will give you an example. In the Northern Territory, we have a Chief Minister who has been here 30 seconds. Right? I have been here more than half of my life and lived in some of the remotest parts of the Northern Territory. The Minister for Health has been here over 20 years and worked in the health sector. There is the slap.
What I am really saying is, between all of us we should be able to do something positive to develop some serious policy to represent the Northern Territory. It is great to get up in this House and have a conversation with the minister. It is an ordered environment where we can speak across the Chamber and put information forward. It is nice to be able to do that in a constructive sense, as opposed to continually having the political rhetoric thrown in, by some more than others.
It is important to reflect on the challenge the minister has embarked upon. When you talk about Indigenous employment and Aboriginal Health Workers, it is not just about Aboriginal Health Workers. I will take you back a decade. In the statement, you talked about the 1990s. I will shift the platform back a decade. I will take you back a further 10 years. Essentially, we are now struggling with the same issue we had with Aboriginal police aides and trackers. We are struggling with the issue of Aboriginal Health Workers, the employment of Aboriginal teachers and teachers’ assistants, and of Aboriginal support staff in the councils and the community organisations. You have to ask yourself why.
You mentioned in this statement that you will research and explore the barriers. If you look at the major reform in local government and the CLP’s election campaign around that, it was very difficult to get any clean air when in many of the regional remote areas, there were employment programs running at less than 20%. If people were not going to work, jobs were not getting done, and a clever opposition was able to exploit that with the toxic shire election campaign that worked very well.
At the same time, that negativity reinforced the mantra of ‘Why go to work? It is so bad I do not want to go to work because these people are telling me.’ The media ran it, and that negativity started across the Territory. I used to debate it on the front line: if people do not get up and go to work, then there will not be any service delivery.
Minister, we faced many critical changes over the last 30 years. I encourage the member for Nelson to speak in this debate because I want to hear of that era I just missed out on. I arrived in the Northern Territory on the tail of what I call that other era going back a little further into the 1960s and the 1970s.
We have to look at the pragmatics and build on the positives. In having the opportunity to have a conversation with the minister, it is mentioned in the statement:
I will put in a word for the people who support renal patients in self-dialysis. This is a cohort we can build off, because there are some sensational people who make that major journey, go away for extensive training and support the renal patient – whether it be a family member, a friend or an associate – and they come back to the community and continue, normally three days a week, in an intensive role supporting that renal dialysis patient. I can speak about two areas in Borroloola and Alpurrurulam where I learn of how this takes place. There are community people involved in the health sector doing an extremely important, life-changing job.
However, the debate now is about the standards and how to manage that environment. In both those places – Alpurrurulam is a little more under control, but in Borroloola they have some issues. Minister, you would know the clinics are so busy and so intensive they do not have the opportunity to keep up that interface to ensure the self-dialysis units are up to standard and the routines and protocols are being adhered to. It is not only the hospital-grade cleaning and management in those units, it is also the occupational health and safety issues about moving heavy boxes of water and all the associated issues around those clinical items needed to operate the machines.
We could probably do a lot better in that environment. At a little place like Alpurrurulam, it is a lot easier and the clinic staff have an easier interface to make sure those standards are kept. In a town like Borroloola, it can get a lot more chaotic. We need to focus on how we can do the job better and support people.
I am coming from the old days when I remember the clinics – and to tell you the truth, I lived in many places that did not have clinics. I would visit communities which were always very busy places, with local workers.
It was good to hear the members for Arnhem and Namatjira participate in this debate and talk about the difficult issues nicely. You picked up on the ‘difficult nicely’ because, let us face it, it is a very hard job in the health sector. When you go into the regional and remote areas, it is extremely challenging work. We have to acknowledge that incredible professional service our health professionals provide.
They were busy places with many workers. It has now become very bureaucratic and very intensive. The clinical standards and the occupational health and safety standards – or better put, maybe the duty of care – has intensified. Health professionals operating in those spheres want, and need, to get the job done. Therefore, it becomes difficult to operate with cultural contingencies. We often find, because the local employees have associated cultural contingencies they have to deal with, they are overlooked and the jobs start to be performed by family members, people brought in, or associates, and then this becomes a clinic that is absent of local people. That culture can, as the member for Arnhem put it, detract form that inclusive feeling and that environment where people feel welcome, comfortable and supported. This is not a blame issue because the health professionals have life and death situations and have to get the job done, and they do it to the highest possible standard. However, we need to somehow broker those cultural elements and get a better balance because it has slipped away.
What do you do? What is the alternative? What I see now in clinics I visit in the electorate of Barkly is many support staff. There are a lot of ancillary workers. The drivers are very interesting. I like to talk to the drivers because they are the people who get the patients. They really know the country, the community and the families, and they give you a lot of good information and stories.
There are cleaners, janitors and gardeners. These jobs can be built on. Those workers who have taken that step are on the 9 am to 5 pm grind, and they get the Monday to Friday whitefella stuff. I encourage them to think about taking the next step and becoming health professionals. Take all that good work ethic and understanding of the mainstream to the next level.
The member for Arnhem talked about the challenges that come with going away for training and education, and so forth. If we start to look at some pragmatics and focus on some of those people already in the system, then we can get a little further. This relates to policy development from the government. I reiterate what the member for Casuarina said about environmental health officers in policy development. I went straight up to him and said, ‘I really like that idea. I hope you submit that before you retire, because that would complement good Labor policy development.’ That is an area we share with everyone, because it is what we are all about.
The statement also mentioned needing to know the barriers to successful outcomes. That is where I reflected on the previous decade. As a small example, when I was on Brunette Downs running the one-teacher school there, there were about 60 people living on the station. This is 1981 I am talking about. There was a fully operational clinic with a qualified sister all paid for by AACo, which had just taken over from King Ranch. I ran the school. Everyone was busy on that station. The men were going to work in various occupations from bore maintenance to bore running, stock camps, to yard work and processing cattle. There were women working in the kitchen, in the store, and gardening around the station. The kids were at school, which I ran. There were staff employed at the school. I had a janitor and an assistant teacher. Everyone was focused every day. However, things have changed dramatically since then.
I go to another example of a community I went to from Brunette Downs, to start the first of five Aboriginal schools in the Barkly. It was on a cattle station. Once again, the cattle station looked after the medical needs and we had a visit once a month from the DMO. They were always great visits where a team would come into the station and everyone would present. It was not only a social occasion, but a time to have your health needs addressed, and it was very well coordinated. Once again, the men and women worked around the station, and everyone was busy. The kids came to school. I had Aboriginal staff at the school and I had an ambition to work myself into unemployment. I wanted to be unemployed because I wanted the Aboriginal people to take over my job, as well as the other jobs. Things have changed.
That road was a track. When I first went there, to cover about 130 km of dirt road took between three and four hours. The traffic data study on that road in 2012, when it was still in the intensity of the federal intervention, showed 60 cars a day on that road. On that same road, I was stuck for three days at one stage, bogged, before anyone came along to help me. It was Jimmy Herreen out of Hatches Creek – a miner – who found me and helped me out of the bog hole, and supported me all the way to the Stuart Highway.
There were 60 cars a day 30 years later. In telling this story, I highlight a mobility factor I have never seen before in the Territory. Because of the improvements in road transport infrastructure and in cars, there is a high mobility factor within communities. People are travelling all the time, and travelling everywhere. That road now supports conventional vehicles and people are moving all the time.
If you are mobile to that degree, it is very difficult to hold down a job. We then have to understand the cultural context, because it is not good enough to say to a person from that community, ‘Hey, you are not working, you are not at work’, because often these cultural responsibilities translate to work. We have to start trying to bridge this gap in understanding that there are very important cultural jobs that take the form of mobility and movement which takes people away from mainstream employment. Service delivery suffers in that.
On the other hand, there is what I call impulsive behaviour, and I continually debate with constituents about, ‘I have to go to town, therefore, my wife and children are coming with me’. It could be Tuesday morning, the kids have to go to school, they have a job, and their wife has an appointment at the clinic. Can they not wait until Friday afternoon?’ That might seem a bit strange. It is definitely a European perspective, but I have no trouble in having that debate because the dominance of this impulsive behaviour which creates high mobility and takes people away from their normal daily lives and being busy in the community.
There are problems associated with that because if the family gets stuck or has trouble in town, if dad gets into trouble with a motor traffic offence or dad or other family members are in trouble with alcohol abuse, it can lead to gaol. These things can spiral out of control, then there is the dislocation of that family. Where did it start? With impulsive behaviour, ‘I have to go to Tennant Creek today’. ‘Do you really?’ I will debate that and will continue to debate it. Often I lose that argument, but sometimes I win it. One of the pragmatic barriers to developing any workforce is to have that difficult conversation.
In education, you can think very creatively around that conversation with alternative timetables. You can start to explore that conversation. A brave government would want to go down that road. I was operating an alternative timetable for three outstation schools in 1989, but it was not adopted system-wide. It was an arrangement agreed to between the community, me and my family, and the department of Education, and it worked really well. When I left, it continued to work well. It was an isolated case agreement because it was in some of the most remote country of the northeast Barkly.
If the minister wants to go down this road and explore the barriers to employment, there will be layers of constraints. Some will be very pragmatic, others will be more culturally sensitive, and others will relate to bureaucracy. However, if you are serious about exploring each of these layers, you could be coming up with something very creative in that application provided in pilot models, where it is tried and tested. Then, what works can be rolled out systemically. That is a pragmatic way to go.
I acknowledge the minister for this exciting, very important work to increase the workforce of Aboriginal Health Workers. The lessons we learn will translate to all sorts of support services in Justice, Education, regional councils and Aboriginal organisations. It will be about moving forward.
Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for the opportunity to have a conversation with her in an ordered environment where we can exchange ideas. There are some important staff upstairs monitoring this, and hopefully it all fuses together to come out as some important policy development.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I recognise some guests in the Speaker’s Gallery: a former member of this Chamber, the retired member for Tiwi/Koolpinyah/Nelson, Noel Padgham, and the retired Litchfield councillor Plaxy Purich. Welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mrs PRICE (Community Services): Madam Speaker, I will not speak too long. I support this statement on the Country Liberal government’s plan to get the number of Aboriginal Health Practitioners back on track.
We know in the regions, in the remote communities, they are very important. Their role is very important to their people and everybody else. I am alarmed that the number of Aboriginal Health Workers employed in the Northern Territory government clinics has dropped by 40%. Some of my relatives who have been out of work have been health workers for years. I give full credit to them.
In the Warlpiri communities they had their own health organisation called WYN health. WYN is Willowra, Yuendumu, Nyirripi Health. That was working very well. It employed Aboriginal people in the communities such as Willowra, Yuendumu and Nyirripi. I give credit to people such as Nola Napangari, Mathew and Grace Egan, Robert Robertson, Jefferson Williams, Lotti Williams, Eddie Robertson, Hamilton Morris, Ned Wilson, and April Nangala-Martin, who is still working at the health clinic at Willowra.
Yes, some communities have been left without health practitioners in their clinics for years. I was so disappointed when Warren Snowdon, who was the Indigenous Health minister, did not support WYN health. He decided it should come under the Northern Territory health service. He did not recognise the importance of what WYN health brought to those three communities. They had jobs, were proud they were independent, and knew exactly what to do.
I went to a couple of meetings some of the WYN health workers had with Warren Snowdon when he was the minister for Indigenous Health. We sat around a table and talked about how important it was that they have their own independent health organisation, but it fell on deaf ears. That was frustrating for them and for me, and there was no support whatsoever. Now WYN health does not exist, but the health workers still do. They are still getting on with the job. Nola Napangari still works at the Nyirripi Health Centre. Mathew and Grace Egan have now put their hands up to do dialysis at Yuendumu, and help their people with the dialysis machines they helped set up in these communities.
I mentioned to the member for Araluen that we need more health workers. Look at what we are doing now. We are talking about FASD. Who do we need out there who is important to make sure we get the message across to mothers that they should not be drinking? Who else would be better than the Aboriginal Health Workers who have the language, are related, know where to find these people, and are the first contact for anything in these communities. These people are passionate because they know they are getting their job done and are helping their people have a better lifestyle. We need to get more of these people on board.
I am so proud that this government and our Minister for Health has decided it is important to help get the health workers back on board, because they are the best people to have on the ground in the remote communities. It also provides job opportunities for them and for local people. We want to make sure we provide these opportunities, that other people look at them as role models and want to be part of that change. We want to make sure they are there to help their people get on their feet and have a better, healthier lifestyle.
It was sad when WYN stopped functioning, because many of those health workers fought really hard to have that organisation that was theirs; they owned it and drove it. In my electorate of Stuart I have visited clinics in Barunga, Beswick, Lajamanu, Nyirripi and Willowra, and I am proud to see Aboriginal people behind the desk. I am proud to see Aboriginal Health Workers talking in their own language to their clients. It is very important to have that. It is very important because I lost many family members to breast cancer as they were too scared to get themselves checked out. It would be great to have male and female health workers, because they need to have a separate section where they talk about their problems with a male nurse or a female nurse or health worker. It makes a huge difference when we have the health workers working in the communities.
Mr Deputy Speaker, we have a real opportunity to match the improvements in closing the gap in the health status of Indigenous and non-Indigenous people. Increasing the Aboriginal health workforce will make a huge difference for the Northern Territory and for us as a whole, so I support this statement.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Health): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank each of the members of this Assembly who have contributed to this debate. I am, quite frankly, a little overwhelmed with the support I have been given on this very important issue. Sometimes there is a bit of division, but today I sense we are all on the same page. Despite our differences in political leanings, it is unanimous that this is an incredibly important issue to try to address: the dwindling number of Aboriginal Health Workers throughout the Northern Territory, particularly in remote areas.
If I am reading the room right, the general sentiment is that having Aboriginal Health Workers, particularly in remote health clinics, is essential. I must quote the member for Arnhem who said:
Much of what she said was the type of information we need to guide us in solving this problem we are faced with of the dwindling number of Aboriginal Health Practitioners throughout the Northern Territory.
She gave some wonderful advice. In her opinion, the problem is not about the personal or social issues confronted by these individual Aboriginal Health Practitioners, it is about the structural or management problems in a lot of clinics where Aboriginal Health Workers do not feel supported, do not feel the strength of a team behind them, and do not feel trusted to do their job. That translates into feeling inadequate and not valued. That, for all of us, is an important part of having job satisfaction and keeping us in the jobs we are doing. We must feel valued and feel a part of the team. I thank the member for Arnhem for her wonderful appraisal of why she thinks things are going wrong. As an Aboriginal Health Worker of many years, she is probably one of the most qualified people in this Chamber to comment on this issue.
Other people made some wonderful contributions too. The members for Namatjira and Barkly talked about this being a community development approach to solving a problem, which it is. That is one thing I did not emphasise enough in my statement; this problem has to be tackled on a community-by-community basis.
It is about grassroots community development. It is about identifying what the issues are for each community, whereby Aboriginal Health Workers are not being recruited and retained in their positions. It is not a one-size-fits-all policy or initiative that we are looking at, it will vary from community to community.
Some communities are doing well. We still have approximately 77 out of 100 positions currently filled in the Northern Territory government. We are still doing okay, but we must lift the bar and improve on that. We have a heck of a lot of work to do, going around to each community which is not travelling too well and working out why.
An update for the Chamber is that in the communities we have visited to start this dialogue about getting back on track, getting more Aboriginal Health Practitioners into the clinics, and employing local Aboriginal people into those positions, we are already seeing a response. There are people in the communities who want to work in these positions. It is extremely encouraging.
One of the most recent conversations I had was at Maningrida two weeks ago. We sat with the Malabam Health Board and a man who is employed as an Aboriginal Health Practitioner at the clinic started to talk about how years ago in Maningrida, Aboriginal Health Workers were chosen to represent the eight clan groups. He said there would be nothing stopping us, or him, talking to those clan groups and getting them to nominate a suitable person to become an Aboriginal Health Worker. We talked about training and how Batchelor had expressed an ability to be flexible in how they provide training and support to any group of people interested in becoming Aboriginal Health Practitioners.
In a very short period of time, we quickly identified solutions to a number of the obstacles and problems that Maningrida was facing. We are due to meet with them again in about six to eight weeks’ time. We will continue discussion to monitor the situation and ensure we progress these ideas and make sure there is action. Action is what has been lacking over the last 10 years – action to address a problem which is not insurmountable, but can be solved. It takes a bit of initiative, focus and dedication from the Department of Health first, but also across the Territory. If people know they are being supported, they are a part of a new, fresh initiative to come on board and work as Aboriginal Health Practitioners, we are halfway there.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am very encouraged by the response from the Chamber today. I am very excited about this initiative. It will bear fruit, but it will also probably turn up other issues we can deal with along the way. It is complementary to our initiative and push towards encouraging communities to take greater control of their clinics. It is also consistent with our initiative to drive economic development on communities, because economic development means employment of local people. This is part of a much bigger focus of this government in our commitment to the bush, the regions, and economic development.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Mr CHANDLER (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Northern Territory is well and truly open for business. The best example of this is how the Country Liberals are making it easier to work with government.
My Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment continues to identify opportunities to streamline processes for the benefit of business and the community. We have the biggest land release program in the Northern Territory’s history, which will mean more construction, more development and more people dealing with the government.
If we do not make working with government an efficient and easy experience, the Territory will not realise its full potential. Streamlining processes will result in time savings on approval processes, provide greater certainty on outcomes of development proposals, and greater efficiency in processing.
I would like to share some of the great work my department has been doing in this area to reduce red tape. In 2013 we approved 810 development applications and 2810 building applications, with an average processing time of 56 days. This is by far the fastest processing time anywhere in Australia, proving the Northern Territory really is open for business.
The progressive online lodgement of development applications has increased the speed of processing of applications, and applicants can track the progress of their applications.
People may now get their applications for subdivision clearance, commonly referred to as Part 5, approved on the day of lodgement, provided they supply all clearance documents, thereby reducing the time in obtaining titles as part of the subdivision process.
Planning processes have been improved and streamlined with the continued development of the Development One Stop Shop that allows developers and the general public to access information about both the development application process and current applications online. Processing of development applications is being reviewed on an ongoing basis to minimise assessment times. Members of the public can access proposals and make submissions online.
Development Consent Authority agendas are now also available to be viewed by the public online, two days prior to DCA meetings. This initiative provides improved transparency in the planning process by improving access to DCA reports, particularly for people living in regional and remote areas. Prior to this initiative, people were only able to access paper copies by visiting departmental offices in Darwin, Alice Springs and Katherine.
Delegations for all divisions of the DCA have also been reviewed to facilitate the processing of the DCA’s decisions in a more efficient manner that would generally allow applicants to receive a determination in a shorter time frame after meetings.
Potential amendments to the NT Planning Scheme are being investigated by my department to identify low-risk, low-impact land uses which will reduce regulatory burden and unnecessary red tape, including but not limited to: reviewing land use tables in residential, industrial, and commercial zones with the aim of making more land uses permitted or self-assessable; and policies for wider housing choice such as smaller lots in the multiple dwelling zones.
An amendment to the multiple dwelling zone now allows for 300 m freehold lots. Deregulation of dependent units, commonly known as granny flats, now allows the occupant of an independent unit to be someone other than a dependant of a resident from the primary dwelling. It will also increase the size of permitted units in rural areas by 30 m. This is a great initiative towards providing more housing choices for Territorians and addressing the housing shortage in the Northern Territory – another step the Country Liberals have taken to reduce the cost of living.
Government has amended the Planning Act to provide for a concurrent assessment of planning scheme amendments and development applications creating a single process for rezoning and development in the planning legislation to save time and, of course, money. This amendment commenced on 1 May 2014.
A new survey plan lodgement process was introduced on 1 July 2014. Under the new survey plan regime, it is mandatory for licensed surveyors to lodge with the Surveyor-General’s Office the survey plan, associated survey information, and all of the land development or administrative statutory approvals.
To maximise internal plan approval efficiencies, the following new processes have been implemented:
The survey plan will only be accepted as lodged if the survey plan and normal reports are accompanied by evidence of all statutory approvals from external agencies. This puts the time lines and efficiency of securing these approvals within the surveyor’s or developer’s project control.
The plans have been examined by an accredited surveyor which ensures a consistent plan examination regime under the control of the lodging surveyor, with no internal plan examination delays.
In March 2009, the former government announced a moratorium of prosecution for buildings with either incomplete or no building certification. The purpose for the moratorium was to allow property owners with buildings that had outstanding approvals additional time to achieve compliance. Successive governments have extended the moratorium, including this one. The continuation, however, of the moratorium with no clear resolution is, of course, not the answer. It is government’s intention to introduce reforms to the Building Act later in 2014 which will provide alternate pathways to building certification, increase capacity within the certification industry, and encourage a culture of compliance.
This move followed extensive industry and community consultation, and the release of a discussion paper which detailed reforms to address problems that exist under the moratorium. These proposed reforms will have three tiers of certification: occupancy permit; certificate of substantial compliance; and certificate of existence. The reforms are proposed to include the introduction of a building inspector category, progressive lodgement of building certificates, government-delivered service in addition to private sector, exempt categories of building work, work that may be self-certified, and the introduction of infringement notices for building practitioners for non-compliance with regulations.
Infringement notices will be a less harsh form of enforcement than the existing process of prosecution through the court. Court prosecutions are costly, stressful and time-consuming for the building practitioner and government. Building practitioners have an important role in ensuring they comply with their statutory obligations, as this can have significant financial and safety repercussions for the owners and the general community.
The development of the Building Approvals Online system has been completed and rolled out to the building certification industry. Building Approvals Online enables private building certifiers to lodge their building approval documents online. This replaces the paper-based lodgement system which imposes costs to the industry – copying and delivery – and government – data entry, filing and storage. It also removes the constraint to certifiers of only lodging during office hours. The interesting fact is 80% of all applications are now being lodged online.
The next step is the digitising of all pre-existing building records, which will enable online access of all building records, increase efficiency for all internal and external clients, and reduce operational costs and risks to government. Placing online all historical building control areas will inform and assist certifiers and property owners with building compliance. A policy has been developed and introduced that enables the Land Titles Office to accept copies of swimming pool fence certificates rather than needing evidence of an original certificate every time a property is transacted. This will reduce time and effort for conveyancers.
My department is investigating online lodgements of applications for plumbers, electrical workers, architects and building practitioners. In recognition of the significant benefits of location intelligence to be gained across NTG systems, a spatially enabling government coordination committee has been established. The new coordinating committee will promote the importance and benefits of location intelligence in business systems by coordinating the development of spatial systems, data management and services through the collaboration and alignment of effort across agencies to reduce duplication, improve processes and efficiencies, and ensure an all-of-government approach to spatially enabling government.
There is no doubt that in my portfolio extensive work is being undertaken to continue to reduce red tape. Great progress has been made in the past two years, and will continue to occur as we focus on working collaboratively with industry in the coming years. That is a fair bit of work for a department to undertake in the last two years, and I congratulate the hard work of the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the statement be noted.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Mr Deputy Speaker, I agree with the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment. There was one remark in today’s statement that is beyond dispute. Undeterred by the dysfunction that has engulfed the CLP government, the minister stated:
I could not agree more. I am sure hard-working businesses and the community in general agree the Territory will not realise its full potential unless working with the government is easy and efficient. But the sad reality is this CLP administration, led by an incompetent and out-of-touch Chief Minister, has made working effectively with the government impossible.
The disgraced former Treasurer is languishing on the backbench and the Chief Minister cannot find a replacement. The Cabinet is in chaos and is disunited, and the public service lacks direction and leadership. How could working with the government possibly be an easy and efficient experience? How could the Territory possibly achieve its full potential under a government led by an inexperienced and arrogant Chief Minister who has no idea how to govern?
I am constantly approached by businessmen and women who cannot see the minister about important development opportunities or serious matters relevant to planning and building issues. He is simple unavailable and decision-making has ground to a halt. Is this really the way the minister is helping the Territory realise its full potential? It demonstrates how out of touch the minister is with the needs of Territory entrepreneurs and the risk our businessmen and women take to invest in businesses and grow our economy. A minister for Lands and Planning who is missing in action and preoccupied with CLP infighting is the last thing our Territory businesses need. Many former CLP supporters in the building and construction industry have lost faith in the government and will not vote for the CLP again. The chaos and uncertainty in the government are compromising certainty for investors, property owners and developers alike.
How can the Territory possibly realise its full potential when investors are confronted by a dysfunctional CLP government, bereft of direction and driven by personal acrimony? The minister is part of this problem, sadly. The abject failure of this minister stands in stark contrast to achievements of the previous Labor government.
In government, Labor fast-tracked five new suburbs in Palmerston. Land release has ground to a halt under the CPL government. We planned the development of the new city, Weddell, suitable for 45 000 people. These plans have been abandoned by the CLP.
We undertook strategic planning decisions around large infrastructure projects such as Darwin prison, the Marine Supply Base and the INPEX workers’ village. These projects drove economic growth and positioned the Territory for a prosperous future.
The CLP government has promised to deliver 6500 new dwellings, most of these slated for release after the next Territory election. Territorians will not be hoodwinked by this blatant deception, as 6500 new dwellings would be a challenge for a competent government, but the chaos and dysfunction endemic in the CLP regime will condemn its promise to failure. How could a government without a Treasurer, led by an incompetent, immature and arrogant Chief Minister, deliver anything of substance, let alone 6500 new dwellings?
You are big on expensive TV ads, glossy brochures – we saw another one released today – and media stunts, but not on well-resourced programs focused on achievable outcomes. If you value your staff, why have you decreased allocations to the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment, and programs in the Land Development Corporation – key agencies in any sound strategy to develop the Territory?
We can only sympathise with the hard-working staff in the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment, who have seen their budgets cut and must now operate without the direction or leadership from their minister.
I note the minister’s statement mentions the Development Consent Authority, but is silent on the appointment of the former Chief Minister and lobbyist, Denis Burke, to the position of DCA Chair. This appointment involves a clear conflict of interest, and is one of a long list of jobs for the boys funded by Territory taxpayers in the two years since the CLP came to office. There is growing community concern and anger about the ongoing appointments of CLP mates, particularly to jobs involving regulatory and commercial functions. The Chief Minister’s hand-picked Chair of the Land Development Corporation, and Foundation 51 Director, has resigned under the pressure of public opinion.
Mr Deputy Speaker, it is pleasing to see further work on online lodgement of applications and the one-stop shop for building approvals established by the former Labor government. I commend the department for its work on these initiatives. But working with this government is not an easy and efficient experience. The minister and his colleagues are holding the Territory back. The community and Territorians deserve better.
Debate adjourned.
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 97)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This bill amends the Anti-Discrimination Act. The Anti-Discrimination Act prohibits discrimination and other related wrongful conduct, and provides for the investigation and conciliation of, and inquiry into, complaints in relation to such discrimination and conduct.
Earlier this year, I flagged that I would introduce an amendment to the Anti-Discrimination Act through a private members’ bill, to make racial vilification unlawful. It is clear that Territorians should have the benefit of protection from racial vilification.
There is confusion at the federal level as to what is planned with federal anti-discrimination legislation, and I want to ensure Territorians are not left unprotected should the federal government proceed with its proposed changes. I believe that sections 18C and 18D of the federal law provide a good model for what could apply in the Northern Territory.
I have been genuine in my hope that we can achieve bipartisan support on this matter. That is why I issued a discussion paper on the proposed amendments and consulted Territorians to hear their views directly.
I am thankful to organisations across the Territory that provided feedback, and I am grateful for their support for bringing this bill to parliament today. In the consultation I asked six broad questions:
1. Do you support a proposal for an amendment to the Northern Territory’s Anti-Discrimination Act to make it unlawful to incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, a person or groups on the grounds of race?
2. How should racial vilification be defined?
3. Are fair comments said or done reasonably and in good faith appropriate exemptions to racial vilification?
4. Should religious vilification be specifically banned or should a definition be included as ‘ethno-religious’?
5. Should sanctions be civil, criminal, or both?
6. How should a complaint be dealt with?
I thank Territorians who provided feedback on my discussion paper and the many stakeholder groups which have given advice on the drafting of this bill. Through the consultation phase, it became clear there is strong support to make this amendment to the Territory’s Anti-Discrimination Act. Territorians clearly believe it is important to legislate against racial hate speech.
Defining racial vilification has been based on existing definitions at the Commonwealth level and in Tasmania. This will enable the Territory to benefit from, and contribute to, the development of jurisprudence concerning the provision.
From the consultation it is clear there is support for an appropriate balance between basic human rights and freedom of expression. In relation to ethno-religious discrimination, ethnic groups with religious ties, including Jews and Sikhs, were first recognised in law in 1994, in an amendment to the United Kingdom anti-discrimination act.
In other Australian jurisdictions, such as New South Wales, the relevant anti-discrimination act defines race to include ethnic, ethno-religious or national origin.
In contrast, the Territory act defines race to include the nationality, ethnic or national origin, colour, descent or ancestry of a person, and that a person is or has been an immigrant.
Queensland, Victoria and Tasmania outlaw both racial and religious vilification. Accordingly, I believe it is important the bill clarifies that protection against hate speech applies to racial and ethno-religious people and groups.
Criminal sanctions already exist for serious forms of threat and harassment, so the bill has proceeded on the basis of a civil sanction, with complaints being dealt with through the complaint handling function of the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner. This will allow for conciliation in appropriate cases, and litigation where matters cannot be adequately resolved.
The Australian Human Rights Commission defines racial discrimination as when a person is treated less favourably than another person in a similar situation because of their race, colour, descent, national or ethnic origin, or immigrant status. The commission describes racial vilification, sometimes referred to as racial hatred, as doing something in public based on the race, colour, national or ethnic origin of a person or group of people which is likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate.
Examples of racial hatred may include
racially offensive material on the Internet, including e-forums, blogs, social networking sites and video sharing sites
racially offensive comments or images in a newspaper, magazine or other publication, such as a leaflet or flyer
racially offensive speeches at a public rally
racially abusive comments in a public place such as a shop, workplace, park, on public transport or at school
I hope I can say all of us in this parliament reject these actions outright. There is no place in our society for racism. There is no place in our society for racial discrimination. There is no place in our society for racial vilification. Our Territory community, like the rest of Australia, has come a long way on a journey opposing racism.
Commenting on the original Northern Territory Anti-Discrimination Bill, on 1 October 1992, the then Chief Minister, Shane Stone, introduced the Anti-Discrimination Bill. He said:
Labor welcomed the intent of the bill and Syd Stirling said it was:
The only member to speak about racial vilification was the then member for Wanguri, John Bailey, who said:
In the debate on my GBD motion, the Leader of Government Business raised concerns about the importance of free speech and how it intersects with anti-discrimination legislation. I am sure we all agree that free speech is something important to us all. It is something we Territorians treasure. We know we are able to speak our minds, but we also expect others to treat us as we would expect to be treated ourselves. It is not a simple matter of either or.
The Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act already contains strong protection of free speech. Section 18D provides a very broad exemption from liability for ‘reasonable’ and ‘good faith’ artistic expression, academic work, debate or public commentary. The Australian Human Rights Commission also describes some things that are not against the law, provided they are ‘done reasonably and in good faith’, even if they are done in public.
Under federal law, the things that are not against the law if they are ‘done reasonably and in good faith’ are:
an artistic work or performance – for example, a play in which racially offensive attitudes are expressed by a character
a statement, publication, discussion or debate made for genuine academic or scientific purposes – for example, discussing and debating public policy such as immigration, multiculturalism or special measures for particular groups
making a fair and accurate report on a matter of public interest – for example, a fair report in a newspaper about racially offensive conduct
making a fair comment if the comment is an expression of a person’s genuine belief.
Section 18D contains exemptions which protect freedom of speech. These ensure that artistic works, scientific debate and fair comments on matters of public interest are exempt from section 18C, providing they are said or done reasonably and in good faith.
The bill reflects the measures contained within section 18D to provide a broad exemption from liability for ‘reasonable’ and ‘good faith’ artistic expression, academic work, debate or public commentary.
I was heartened by the comments of the Leader of Government Business when he spoke in this place on 14 May this year, when I moved a General Business motion about the importance of having adequate protections in the Territory against racial vilification. In that debate, I said bipartisan support is crucial on this matter, since it is something which affects us all.
The Assembly came together and the motion agreed to read as follows:
The Leader of Government Business and the Minister for Multicultural Affairs both suggested there was not much evidence of racial vilification in the Territory. I agree we all want to see zero racial vilification, but there have been at least six cases brought before the Human Rights Commission concerning racial vilification in this jurisdiction.
Without protections against racial hatred, there may have been more reportable incidents, and none would have been dealt with by the commission. Those Territorians would have been vilified and, collectively, the message sent to those who would incite racial hatred is it is okay.
As I said in the debate on my GBD motion, in the Territory we are so lucky to live in a wonderfully cultural landscape full of rich history and meaning. The depth of that cultural Indigenous history is incredible. We are so lucky to call this country of ours home.
I call myself a saltwater person. I was born and raised in Darwin, but then there is the rock country in West Arnhem, the open woodlands across the big rivers, the open plains of the Barkly and, of course, the desert of Central Australia. We are all witness to Indigenous Territorians who can claim, quite rightly and proudly, to have the oldest continuous living culture on our planet.
Our Territory is home to the descendants of the first settlers, when we were part of the colony of South Australia. In 1869, George Goyder, Surveyor-General of SA, established a small settlement of 135 people at Port Darwin, and named the settlement Palmerston. In 1870 the first poles for the overland telegraph were erected in Darwin to eventually open the Territory, and Australia, to the rest of the world.
Our Territory has been home to people from across the continents and nations of the world who have decided to settle here since then. For example, the Chinese population at one time outnumbered the European population in the Top End. Many were recruited to the government of the day, and by 1878 the Chinese were the largest non-Indigenous group in the Northern Territory.
According to the government resident’s report of 1909, there were 6122 Chinese in the NT, and 1888 were contracted to work in the goldfields, and later built the railway line from Palmerston to Pine Creek. Over a century ago, in the late 1890s, Chinatown in Cavenagh Street had become a hive of Chinese activity and commerce.
The Census of 1921 showed there were seven Cypriots living in Darwin. They were employed at Vesty’s Meatworks and the Pine Creek Railway. Following the political stability after World War II, some Cypriots headed to Australia, so by 1952, Greek Cypriots were the largest group of Greek Australians in Darwin.
Following Cyclone Tracy, I saw us welcome many people from Greece to our city, and by 1982 Darwin City Council had signed a sister city agreement with Kalymnos in recognition of the growing links between our two communities.
We all celebrate a great Territory lifestyle. It is what makes our Territory what it is, and is why we call our multicultural dynamic home. This was why Darwin was named one of the best cities to visit in 2012 by Lonely Planet, where we were described as ‘multicultural, young and energetic’, which is a great selling point for tourism.
Tourism Top End describes Darwin as:
Our multicultural Territory is growing and it is right that our anti-discrimination legislation is modernised to ensure that no one is subjected to racial hate speech.
On 25 March this year, the Commonwealth Attorney-General, Senator Hon George Brandis, released an exposure draft bill on proposed amendments to the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act 1975. Section 18C was introduced as an amendment to the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 in 1994-95 after several reports and long consultation. It was introduced in partial fulfilment of Australia’s obligations under the convention for the elimination of racial discrimination which obliges states to take action on racial hate speech.
Section 18C renders unlawful conduct which is likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate people on the basis of their race. This is a civil prohibition only. Section 18C does not create an offence or a crime. No one can be charged or prosecuted and no criminal punishments can be imposed on those who breach it. Law suits under section 18C are brought privately by victims, not by the government. Section 18C applies an objective test: the court must consider whether the relevant conduct is likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate an ordinary and reasonable member of a racial group. It is not enough that a given person subjectively feels offended; hurt feelings are not enough. It is expected that an ordinary and reasonable member of a racial group has some tolerance for the views of others.
The proposed draft amendments include inserting a new section into the Racial Discrimination Act, which would remove the first three terms ‘offend’, ‘insult’ and ‘humiliate’, and narrow the definition of intimidate to ‘fear of physical harm’. It will also add the word ‘vilify’, but define it to mean ‘the incitement of third parties to hatred’.
The federal government’s proposed amendments were roundly criticised around the country. The Australian Human Rights Commission’s submission to the Attorney-General’s department about the proposals recommends the exposure bill, as drafted, should not proceed.
The commission has identified key areas of concern with the proposed exposure draft, including:
The Australian Council of Human Rights Authorities, of which the Northern Territory’s Anti-Discrimination Commissioner is a member, has submitted that:
The council has found that:
Other organisations, including the Australia Hellenic Council of New South Wales, are gravely concerned about the federal government’s proposed watering down of the racial vilification provisions in the Racial Discrimination Act. The Federation of Ethnic Communities’ Councils of Australia has warned the government the change would leave Australians with no protection against racial vilification, and the Chinese Australian Forum said it is an immoral move that will encourage racism.
I will now read an excerpt from an open letter signed by 155 organisations that Australia must retain strong and effective protections against racial vilification. The organisations include national bodies which include Territory organisations such as Larrakia Nation, corporations, non-government organisations, faith groups, legal services, and many other groups. The open letter said:
The objects of the Anti-Discrimination Act include the promotion, recognition and acceptance within the community of the principle of the right to equality of opportunity, of persons regardless of an attribute, and the elimination of discrimination against persons on the grounds of race, sex, sexuality, age, marital status, pregnancy, parenthood, breastfeeding, impairment, trade union or employer association, religious belief or activity, political opinion, affiliation or activity, irrelevant medical record or irrelevant criminal record in the area of work, accommodation or education or in the provision of goods, services and facilities, in the activities of clubs, or in insurance and superannuation.
The objects remain valid. My bill extends those objects by prohibiting behaviour which is reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or group of persons because of their race or religious belief or activity, subject to relevant exemptions.
While I welcome the recent comments from the Prime Minister that he has abandoned plans to repeal section 18C of the federal Racial Discrimination Act, I am concerned there are some crossbench members of the federal parliament who have indicated they intend to bring forward a private members’ bill to repeal section 18C. Accordingly, the objective of my bill to ensure Territorians are protected from racial and religious vilification remains valid.
I now turn to specific clauses in the bill. Clause 3 amends section 4 to insert a definition of ‘racially or religiously offensive’.
Clause 4 inserts a new section 22A concerning racially or religiously offensive behaviour. It is modelled on Commonwealth and Tasmanian anti-vilification measures. The clause prohibits behaviour which is reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimate another person or group of person because of their race or religious belief or activity.
Section 22A(1) applies the new section to public acts in any area of activity and not limited to the six areas mentioned in section 28 of the act – namely education, work, accommodation, goods and services and facilities, clubs, insurance and superannuation.
Section 22A(3) sets out a number of exemptions modelled on section 18D of the Commonwealth act if the behaviour is done in good faith and reasonably, along with being for academic, artistic, scientific, or research purposes, or for making or disseminating a fair and accurate report of an event or matter of public interest, or a fair comment on an event of public interest that is an expression of genuine belief, or for a purposes that is in the public interest. The act must be public and is defined in section 22A(3). The subsection also covers bullying on the Internet.
It is intended that the new provision cover all activities across the Territory. Section 51 currently exempts religious bodies from the prohibition on racially or religiously offensive conduct if the conduct was ‘as part of any religious observance or practice’.
Clause 5 clarifies that the prohibited grounds of discrimination provisions in Part 3 Division 1 of the act continue to not apply in relation to religious bodies. This means the prohibited conduct provisions in proposed section 22A would apply.
This bill is the culmination of a lengthy process of consultation with the public. This has been achieved by means of a discussion paper and consultation during the drafting process. The amendments represent a great improvement to the Territory’s Anti-Discrimination Act.
It is unfortunate the amendments were trigged by plans at the federal level to remove such protections. The Territory is the only jurisdiction which does not have anti-vilification provisions in legislation. Therefore, it is timely this private members’ bill be supported by the Assembly to provide protection for Territorians against racial vilification.
My team and I recognise that Territorians celebrate a great Territory lifestyle. It is what makes our Territory what it is, and is why we call our multicultural Territory home. There is no place for racial discrimination in today’s society, and this bill enshrines that principle in law to ensure Territorians are protected from racial and religious vilification.
I thank the Office of Parliamentary Counsel for its assistance in drafting this bill. I thank my adviser, David Halliday, for his tireless efforts and work in the discussion paper and the efforts in drafting this bill. I thank the many Territorians who provided feedback on my discussion paper and the many stakeholder groups which have given advice on the drafting of this bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that:
the government reaffirms its support for the development of the Litchfield area as a predominately rural community – that is, villages or district centres interspersed with rural blocks not less than 1 ha, as highlighted in the Litchfield Land Use Objectives
the minimum lot size for Rural Residential remains as 1 ha and not 0.4 ha as being promoted by the developers and the Planning Commission, and that blocks smaller than 1 ha be located within villages or district centres
the government does not go ahead with its plan to develop Holtze Howard Springs in the suburb of Palmerston North (9500 blocks) but rather develops the area as rural with the smallest rural lot size being 1 ha except within a village or district centre
the government supports the development of the Howard Springs forestry land into a rural subdivision, not an activity centre as shown on the Planning Commission’s draft plans
ribbon development included in proposed activity centres along the Stuart and Arnhem Highways, as shown in the Planning Commission’s draft plans, be replaced with predominantly rural residential or rural living development, with commercial and industrial land centralised in district centres
the notion of peri urban and urban development in the Lloyd Creek, Noonamah and Hughes localities is scrapped and the area is developed in keeping with the concept of small villages, not cities as such as proposed for Hughes, interspersed with rural lot sizes above 1 ha as in the Litchfield Land Use Objectives. Lloyd Creek, Noonamah and Hughes should not be used to avoid the government’s responsibility to build Weddell
the government keep its promise it announced before the last election to develop Weddell as the next major urban centre for the Darwin region without an Elizabeth River dam or lake.
This is a fairly limited debate, to some extent, for some people, because they do not live in the rural area. I should explain to people that after Darwin, Palmerston and Alice Springs, the next largest centre is Litchfield, with over 20 000 people. This area developed after or around Cyclone Tracy and has continued since. In many cases, people moved to the rural area to get away from the bureaucracy. That was no more reflected than in the original plans for the Litchfield Shire Council, which will basically be a flat, low-rate, minimum legislation. Up to recent times, that is how it occurred.
What I am putting forward is the CLP’s own policy. It might seem strange. This document here – it is a bit worn out because I use it quite a bit – is called the Litchfield Planning Concepts and Land Use Objectives. In this version is the ex-minister for Planning, Mr Kon Vatskalis’, picture, but if I was to give you the one published just before the election of that year, it would have Mr Tim Baldwin’s picture. This document is nearly word for word, exactly what the CLP put out, and I have always supported it.
Today, I am repeating what you people said should happen to the Litchfield Shire – no more, no less. There are a few issues that need upgrading, and I would be the first to say this document probably needs a revision.
The amazing thing is I have not heard anyone in government mention this document, which is a legal document under the Planning Act. If fact, if you look up the website for Lands, Planning and the Environment, this is one of the documents you should take into consideration.
This motion is not about anti-development. I support the minister saying we need more land. However, there are two kinds of land – rural land and urban land. Rural land is what was designed for the Litchfield area, and urban land was what was designed for Palmerston and Weddell.
I will read a couple of things out of the Litchfield Land Use Objectives so people understand where I come from when I get a little passionate about this. For instance, on page 6 it says:
The one thing that has changed here that was moved by the government at that time was to say the minimum lot size is 1 ha. Anything under that is not regarded as rural:
Also, under the heading on page 7:
It said:
…
What changed there was ‘absolute minimum lot size is 1 ha’, not an average of 1 ha.
That is a document we have been using since 2002. As I said, it should be looked at to be revised, to see if it is still up to date and relates to the present. We have had a series of documents since then. First we had the Labor Party’s rural village plans. I do not have a copy of that with me, but it was very similar to the CLP’s village plans. You would be pushing to see a great difference, except there were some changes of development along the Arnhem Highway and the Stuart Highway.
Then came this document called the Rural Centre Plan, which was issued by the members for Goyder and Nelson. It gave an alternative point of view to what the Labor Party was trying to introduce and its reasons. These were the differences between what the Labor Party was trying to do at that time and what the members for Goyder and Nelson had released.
‘The main difference between these alternative plans and the government plans are listed below:
‘The rural lifestyle is shown as a legitimate lifestyle, as opposed to living in the suburbs of Darwin, Palmerston or the future city of Weddell. Rural living is protected.
‘A rural centre is a small community serving the rural area, not a suburb. Each rural centre has a clear boundary separating rural development from urban development.
‘A new zone is to be created called Large Urban – LU – 0.4 ha or 1 acre, and only permitted within rural centres.
‘The minimum rural lot size in Litchfield remains as 1 ha or 2.5 acres, and that is called Rural Residential. It can be RRR, which means restricted clearing and not 0.4 ha or 1 acre, as proposed by the government.
‘Where lot sizes are small outside of rural areas such as on Fellows Road, Stowe Road or parts of Whitewood Park in Howard Springs, they are not used as a precedence but recognised as an exception rather than the rule.
‘These rural centre plans are based on a principle of good planning rather than vested interest. ‘
That was the document Madam Speaker and I released. It was a good attempt – not perfect. We had to do it with limited resources in a very short time as an option to develop the rural area.
Then we had the CLP’s plan, which was a glossy brochure; it was more than a brochure, it was a book. It came out about eight months before the election. I praised the CLP for bringing out that document, much of which was very similar to the 1990 document, but at least it had a lot more information than what Labor had released.
This plan was called Regional Land Use Plans, and in it, it showed exactly what I am supporting today – that there would be a rural area, no Palmerston north, and there would be a Weddell – lake or no lake. They had two maps in this document. This was put out as part of their policy for the last election. What has happened to this? Did it die a happy death? Was it not convenient? Were there people knocking on the government’s doors saying, ‘Look at me, I can do you a better deal’? I do not know, but that is what happened.
Then we had the election. In December last year, the Planning Commission put out this option about developing the Darwin region. You have to remember that most of this map is Litchfield. There is some development in Palmerston and some in Darwin. I am not here tonight to go through the Darwin issues, but there are certain issues. This map was an A4 sheet, which had a back on it which explained what was in it, and people were asked to comment. It disappointed me that in this whole discussion there were no public forums or information days. It was something for you to work your way through.
I had four public meetings trying to describe what this document is, and I showed a PowerPoint presentation. I only have the black and white which showed when submissions were closing on 10 March. This was not a biased document; I tried to explain what the Planning Commission was attempting to do. I was not trying to be political in this case. I said, ‘You people coming to the meeting have to decide what you want’, because this was what was in it. That was a failing of the Planning Commission in developing that area and this option.
Before the next draft came out the government decided to put this magic plan out. You must remember this is one of the problems I have. We have the Northern Territory Planning Commission saying, ‘We are independent, we are working out the future of Darwin’, and the minister and the Chief Minister were on TV with this beautiful photograph, which I asked the ABC to give me, which showed all of Holtze and Howard Springs as a suburb.
Could I get a copy of that? ‘Oh, no, it is not going to look like that’. It is because the latest draft plan says there will be 9500 blocks. That is in the new Planning Commission’s plans. You will not fit 9500 blocks unless they are little blocks and cover that entire area.
However, the people were not being told. What is confusing is why the Chief Minister and the minister for Planning did not make this statement before the Northern Territory Planning Commission had put out its final draft. Would it have anything to do with the by-election? It might have had something to do with the by-election. They had to have a good news story. No one was going to vote for you in the rural area so you were safe. This was a good news story around the time of an election. Otherwise I might have been able to get a copy of this without having to go around corners to get it.
We now have the new draft of the Darwin regional plan, which is a fairly substantial document. Someone told me it is an improved document. I will not say who said that. No, it is not an improved document. They have just increased the density of housing and the amount of peri urban – I love that name, peri urban, periwinkle, Perry Mason …
Mr Chandler: It is improved.
Mr WOOD: Improved? An extra 3500 blocks of land have turned up down on Redcliffe Road, and the statement said 9500 blocks in Holtze Howard Springs, when the minister originally said 1500. In fact, he said 1500 last night. If he thinks he will put 1500 or 1600 dwellings around the hospital site – 1500 is 6000 people, a fifth of the present size of Palmerston. That is not a district centre, that is a suburb.
You have documents that have not taken into consideration the rural point of view. We support – I say ‘we’ as 1054 people signed two petitions, one at the show and one outside the front of my shop. I did not go any further. I could have gone to Humpty Doo. I hope you enjoyed the beautiful photography on the front of those postcards ...
Mr Chandler: It was from my address.
Mr WOOD: Yes, someone must love you very much. I do not know how that happened. Yes, many postcards were sent out. It was a nice way, minister, of raising a point.
I did not burn down Parliament House or throw rocks at anyone. I tried to put proposals that you would hopefully listen to – a reasonable approach to the development in the rural area that would fit in with exactly what you are after: an expansion of land to make it more affordable.
What also worries me is that at the same time as all this was happening there was another issue at the Hughes Airstrip. The minister would have seen this document, I am sure. This document is called the Development Proposal for Hughes and Noonamah District Centres, including the Hughes Heritage Village. The member for Goyder and I raised the issue of the Hughes development in our plan, where we said, ‘A possible new rural centre is being investigated near Hughes World War II Airstrip. This is being promoted by a local private development. It may have merit, but the concept of a rural village and rural development around the village should be the basis for any future planning.’
In other words it should keep in line with the land use objectives. The plan says in the Hughes District Centre there will be 45 2 ha lots, 540 0.4 ha blocks – straightaway you are under the minimum lot size – 4240 800 m2 blocks – that is roughly 1900 people. For Noonamah, you are looking at 30 2 ha blocks, 700 0.4 ha blocks, and 1840 800 m2 blocks. If you add them together, you get about 7300. That is a population – if there were four people per house – of nearly 30 000 people. That is nothing like what the land use objectives stated. It expected this land will be developed into 8 ha blocks so there was a range of sizes.
Then, lo and behold, I did not know this until recently. I had heard whispers, but what got me going is the Development Consent Authority put this nice section of land down Redcliffe Road as peri urban and urban. How un-rural can you get with a name like that? Give me a break! It is planning jargon, and non-friendly to any normal person.
What did I find out? I found out there is a big proposal to develop that land. Guess what? I have raised this issue before. I asked the minister if any companies from south, any Sydney companies, would come to the Northern Territory and develop the land. ‘Oh, no’. The minister might be right but I know of one large block not far from me where the person has been approached by a large company which wants to chop that rural block up into little blocks.
There is a large block of land there which is being developed by a company called Intratech. That company is from Sydney, and its job is to develop land. This is the bit I love. You know when it is a southern real estate or developer company because it changes the name. The name of the land on the west side of Redcliffe Road is Lloyd Creek. But not anymore! It is Noonamah Ridge. Doesn’t that smell like – what were those places …
Mr Barrett: Vegemite.
Mr WOOD: No, better than Vegemite. It sounds like the new estates in Palmerston. They were heights, or lows, or flats, or ponds or something. They never had their real names.
This company develops suburbs – if you can call them that – in Sydney, and it wants to get in here and turn this into 3500 lots. I do not have anything against the land being developed, but it wants 3500 lots where I worked out you could have about 2000 1 ha blocks, which is pretty small, and you are probably not going to have 1 ha because of town water.
There must be something that is jamming all these people in here. So there is another district centre. But it is not a district centre normally, it is another city. It is not that we are against development, it is the size of the development.
This concepts and planning land use objectives are what you, as a CLP government, said was how the rural area should be developed. You have gone away from that without any mandate from anyone. You have just said, ‘We need more land’. Hang on, your plan said you would build Weddell. So what do the minister and the Chief Minister say? ‘Oh, there is no work being done on that.’
Here are some documents that should be publicised. There was the Weddell Design Forum. Many people, local and interstate, put a lot of work into looking at what Weddell should look like. Out of that document, plus a lot of groundwork, came this document, Notice of Intent, Proposed City of Weddell, Northern Territory Department of Lands and Planning. The date on that is 28 June 2011.
It is interesting looking at this document because a range of things are discussed: where the city should be developed; native title; existing land use; road network; mining tenure; power, sewerage; railway; telecommunications; and gas and oil lines. It said, ‘Description of proposed development: the Department of Lands and Planning proposes that this NOI …
Notice of intent. Sorry, I am not good with acronyms:
‘… is an environmental assessment of the entire proposed development area for urban mixed use development.
‘5.1 Timing of proposed development: The time horizon for the development of this area is likely to be in excess of 30 years, and there is uncertainty in determining at this stage how the development may progress into the future. The master planning of the city commenced in 2010, and the first development lot is scheduled to be available in 2014. Weddell has a population target of 50 000 within 30 to 50 years, dependant on population growth in the greater Darwin and Palmerston regions. ‘
It then has a number of scenarios. It talks about proposed land uses.
I am not saying you could build a city tomorrow just using this document, you obviously could not. But when you go through the back of this document, you will see they have done considerable work on the design of the town. They were going to develop it slowly, which is a natural way to develop it.
You are not asking for it to be built in the middle of the Tanami Desert, you are asking someone to build where there is infrastructure. It is not all over the place, but there is a major pipeline down Jenkins Road, the Darwin River Dam, the Weddell Power Station and access over the Elizabeth River Bridge if you cannot build the alternative bridge, which is through Virginia.
Please do not say there were not any plans for Weddell. There were plans for it. It seems there are people who may or may not have approached the government. If you read about the development on Redcliffe Road, you will see that it is now called – the minister would probably know better than me. ‘… a significant development proposal lodged with the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment under section 58 of the Planning Act, and a Notice of Intent lodged with the Northern Territory Environment Protection Area’.
I am not sure this says that has been done, so I am not saying it has been done. It could be their intent to do that.
I have a concern about significant development proposals only being given to the minister to approve. That was a clause the CLP government inserted when it revised the Planning Act. It takes away the power to make a decision over such a development from the independent Development Consent Authority.
I am a little suspicious. You have a number of large landowners – bless their hearts, I know them all. You also have a plan to build Weddell. The latest draft plan from the Planning Commission, talking about the area I am talking about, quotes a figure of 45 000. There is an interesting point here. This is a heading under the Planning Commission’s document. I said Lloyd Creek is now Noonamah Ridge. Noonamah Ridge is a name created by this new company from Sydney. The document from the Planning Commission says:
Oh, I shake in my boots!
Noonamah Ridge is now in inverted commas:
Guess what? Weddell is expected to be around 50 000. Has the government said it does not want any responsibility for Weddell, even though it promised it in its plans? It is in your plans and in the land use objectives. I always see the responsibility of building a new city, or at least planning a new city, as the responsibility of a government because that is its role. It is not necessarily the role of the government to build it, but to plan it, because it does things on behalf of the community.
I see the government being given an option to get out of spending money on Weddell, with plans to do a pseudo-Weddell in Noonamah, Hughes and Lloyd Creek. The problem I have with that is it stuffs up the plan and ruins the rural area. It will not be the rural area anymore with that sort of population.
The other thing that worries me is you will get a plan – you might get nice subdivisions, do not get me wrong – but will you get a vision which you would get with a city? I weep now when I come into Darwin. Darwin had opportunities and I put the blame, to some extent, back on the other government. It had designs and meetings. It tried to come up with plans for high-rise development in Darwin. I do not know what happened to them, but when you go along Woods Street and come up Tiger Brennan Drive, you see the great wall of flats. I am afraid that has ruined Darwin city. It should have been space, especially on the ground, interconnected with cafs, walkthroughs and parks. What we have, unfortunately, is wall-to-wall blocks of flats. They are not New York mansions, we are just looking at blocks of flats, which is so sad.
I am not knocking Palmerston, but the reality is the CBD was a disaster. There are some nice buildings in there, do not get me wrong. I used to drive from Daly River and see a water tower go up in the bush. What is that for? Next time I saw Highway House – there was no one out there. That was the first building that went up there, then the suburbs and at the same Coles. La Piras built the shopping centre there and it developed. However, the concept of linking a series of four roundabouts with the CBD in the middle, which I thought would happen, resulted in the Oasis shopping centre being on the other side. That was because certain people owned some land, got it rezoned and it ended up being there, which was a poor decision.
Then you have the basketball court. I am not against basketball courts, but right in the middle of the CBD did not seem right. I know there were reasons, but that should have been down with the other recreation facilities such as the pool, netball courts and tennis courts. The CLP might say the previous government did not do much, but those facilities in Driver for netball and tennis are terrific. They are really great ...
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to standing Order 77, I request an extension of time for the member.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: All I am saying is Palmerston CBD could have been developed much better. There was a chance to make a nice city, and we ended up with Bunnings there. What is Bunnings doing in the middle of your CBD? Over the road is the industrial and commercial area. Do not look at me. It might move yet because I gather there are plans to build a new Bunnings.
I want the government to build Weddell so we can have a city we are proud of. We can start from scratch and build a beautiful city.
People might knock Canberra, but have you ever stood at the War Memorial and looked down on the old Parliament House and across to the new one? That is a beautiful vista. Why can we not do things that way? I showed pictures to people when I was in Northern Ireland and looked at the Parliament of Northern Ireland at Stormont. It sits on a hill and there is a huge avenue that goes up about 2 km. It is magnificent, like someone had a vision.
The vision we have today is, ‘I could put another 50 houses there’. When you go through Palmerston you think, ‘I cannot believe this’. There are streets that look like something which has come out of an Enid Blyton Noddy book. They cannot put more than two cars in the street, then you get booked if you put your car on the verge. I cannot believe it. The councils approve these roads. Someone who was doing landscape work said to me the other day, ‘The developers convinced the government there should be small, narrow roads in those cul-de-sacs so they could create an extra 12 blocks’. It was not about the people who would live there, it was about how much more money they could make through smaller roads. Give me a break! I once saw a plan for public open space which took into account the nature strip!
We could establish a great city with Weddell. You do not have to have the lake. You have not said anything about the lake, minister, for a long time, but the Planning Commission has a whole page about why we should have it. I understand why people might think it would be great. I do not have a problem with cities being on a lake, but this lake could destroy an entire river. That is my problem.
People say, ‘What about Lake Burley Griffin?’ Lake Burley Griffin is way upstream, it is not at the mouth of the river. This is at the mouth of the river; that is the problem. You could probably have a dam upstream and it would make very little difference. However, this one is at a very important part of the river which, if dammed or wiered, will destroy it, to the detriment of Darwin Harbour.
I have tried hard to convince the government. I sometimes wonder whether I have to bring another rally to Parliament House again. I put out these documents and, unfortunately, in trying to do this, be in parliament, and get these out in time for people to comment on the new draft regional plans the Planning Commission has issued, it takes a lot of time. It is difficult sometimes for people to understand.
I hope you like the cards we sent out. They say: ‘Dear Minister, as a rural resident … ‘ – we want to make sure everything is honest, minister. People were able to cross out ‘rural’ and put ‘as a Territory resident’ – ‘… I strongly oppose plans by your government to develop part of Howard Springs into a suburb called Palmerston north. I support rural development with a minimum lot size of 1 ha, 2.5 acres. I also support the concept of smaller blocks in district centres. Holtze Howard Springs should be developed as a rural subdivision and any suburban development should be in a district centre or in Weddell or Murrumujuk …’ – which is one of your options – ‘… as your government promised. Please leave the rural area rural. It is our choice, it is our children’s future, it is our lifestyle. Do not mess with it!’
If you want people and children to grow up well, give them space, fresh air and opportunities to do things a bit different. There is nothing wrong with suburbs, but I found out by living in the rural area for 30 years that it is a great place to bring up a family. How much crime do you find in the rural area? You might get a few silly people trying to grow their funny weed, but generally speaking rural children grow up with an advantage over suburban children. They can have some chooks, ride their quad bike around their block – hopefully with a helmet on – they can have a horse and they can enjoy the bush, which many people do.
Many people here see the suburbs as destroying the bush. Here is the chance for some people to have a patch of the bush and enjoy the birds and the wildlife. I go to the Rural Garden Club. Nearly all its members come from the rural area, and they love it. Many of them would like to stay in the rural area.
You could announce one good thing in this discussion about the block of land on the corner of Beaumont and Freds Pass Roads. You could announce that the government will release land it owns in Humpty Doo and put out expressions of interest for a rural retirement village. It should not be a squashed-in one like Tiwi Gardens, which is a bit of a Noddy-style subdivision. A rural subdivision would be great news. I tried to convince the previous government, and it came up with excuses why it could not happen. I do not know the excuses why it could not happen, but that would be a great thing as part of this plan.
Minister, I do not know where you will go with what I am putting forward today. I am putting it in good faith. I am saying, yes, I support the idea of opening up more land, and there is a legitimate need for more rural development. The plans I have seen are not about rural development, and are not preserving what is there. They do not expand and allow it and allowing more kids to have an opportunity.
Holtze Howard Springs is a classic example where the government owns the land. You could open up that land in a mixture of 1 ha and 2 ha blocks. It could have a district centre near the prison and, as you said last night, minister, a district centre at the hospital. I agree with everything you said last night about the hospital having a development such as nursing quarters, doctors quarters and staff quarters around the hospital. That is a great idea and I support that. But then you said 1500 blocks. I thought, ‘How many people do you have in this hospital?’ That killed the whole idea of a district centre. A district centre is not a city or a suburb, it is an area that provides a service for that area so you can retain the rural area and have a place that services it.
I know it is a difficult area for people who may not be interested in this discussion. Planning is never simple. It has taken me – I do not know how many years – since John Maley put me in charge of the Planning Committee on the Litchfield Shire Council from the day I started on that council. It takes a lot of understanding; it wears me out. I do not do it for fun, I do it because I want to see good planning, opportunities for young people in my area and the polocrosse nationals come back again. I do not want to hear, ‘I am sorry we do not have any horses this year because we sold all the land for little blocks’. I want to see the pony club and people displaying their chooks, goats or some of their cattle at the Freds Pass Show.
Taminmin College is a classic example of why we live out there. It has one of the best VET courses. The college looks after horses and cattle, has a great garden, and encourages people to learn how to live in their own environment. Those are the things we will lose, simply because we have big developers, a government policy that has not even been discussed properly – and I am attempting to do that tonight – and something that has never mandated in an election.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the minister can get the best of both worlds. He wants to develop more land and he can do that by developing Weddell and the rural area – two separate things for two separate purposes. The document is here. It is not as though work has not been done. If this government could design Weddell to make it a city that stands out as a tropical city worth living in, that will be a great achievement for your government.
Mr CHANDLER (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Mr Deputy Speaker, from the outset, we on this side of the House, the County Liberals, appreciate good planning. We appreciate we live in interesting times. In fact, at this morning’s discussions with the team, there was a view of whether there was any way we could support this motion, because we support the intent of the motion.
The good planning and what the member for Nelson is putting forward is his vision of rural development …
Mr Wood: No, no, the CLP did these.
Mr CHANDLER: … using a lot of documents and so forth. There was a view of whether there was any way we could support this motion, or an amended motion. The reality is, the government would be hamstrung in supporting the motion as it is at the moment. However, we are very supportive of the intent behind the motion, the concept of rural and urban areas. That is why we have had the Planning Commission working so hard on a number of areas.
The reality is, in government, unlike the freedom of opposition or Independents, we have pressures from everyone, including financial pressures from a growing economy and what that is doing.
I couch my discussion tonight to try to be as clear as I possibly can, but also suggest I have my colleagues on side – and I have also spoken very quickly to the member for Nelson – about how we might improve some of the consultation, the way forward and where we are going to do that development when it comes to a government that wants to develop on the back of need. There will be ongoing pressures in the rural area. I have had many people from the rural area approach me. Constituents of the members for Nelson, Daly and Goyder have approached me directly about development opportunities in their areas.
To say that everybody in the rural area does not want development is not right. There are many people there who want to see change and development, but you have to balance it with the needs of those who do not. That is always the hardest thing when it comes to the area of planning.
I upset many people in this role and it is certainly not my intent. However, I can tell you advice from my own father, who said, ‘Peter, Santa Claus does not make everyone happy all the time’. If Santa Claus is upsetting people, I do not feel so bad.
There is one thing we need to get straight from the outset. Neither the member for Nelson, Gerry Wood, or any single rural resident owns the rural area. There is a lot of area there that is Crown land, which means it is owned by all Territorians. It is up to the elected government to decide how it can benefit most Territorians.
The biggest issues facing Territorians are the cost of living and access to affordable housing, because the Labor Party, in the last 11 years in government, did not release enough land. That made the cost of a piece of dirt unaffordable in the Northern Territory.
The member for Nelson wants to restrict the Holtze area to large rural blocks. On listening to him, I went back to the department – so I actually do listen – and had some work done on the area we were talking about. I asked for the size of blocks the member for Nelson was looking at in the area of Holtze, including the area that is not in our hands yet. It is still Defence land, we are still in negotiations, so that area has never been zoned before for rural living or anything like that. It is not …
Mr Wood: It could not be zoned.
Mr CHANDLER: It could not be zoned because it is Defence land. People have come in to my office and said to me, ‘Gerry Wood told me that area had been zoned rural residential’. It could not be zoned because it is Defence land and is still not in the hands of the Territory government.
Anyway, I had the work done to find out how much it would cost. The results were that to develop the area of Holtze into rural living blocks as presented by the member of Nelson was in the vicinity of around $400 000 a block. You have to wonder how many people can afford $400 000 blocks. If you were going to put that number of blocks onto the market at $400 000, is it affordable? With the crisis we have with affordability it is very easy to make a decision that $400 000 blocks of land are not sustainable. Offering a range of blocks in that area, including rural blocks, will make it more affordable for everyone.
The member for Nelson has often spoken about Weddell. The people I have spoken to about Weddell – you would swear by how successful the previous government was in its marketing campaign they owned Weddell. As the member for Nelson rightly pointed out tonight, Weddell has been on the cards since the 1970s; it has been around for a long time. We will not be walking away from Weddell. Weddell is still part of what will be a future city. There is no backing away from that.
But when you come into government and you inherit the debt and deficit situation the previous government left this government, and on top of that an economy that was spinning along and, because of the lack of land release causing prices to go through the roof, you are left with making some harsh decisions. What do you do? The perfect solution would have been to invest hundreds of millions of dollars into a new city of Weddell, and do everything the member for Nelson is suggesting.
However, if that money is not available, you have to come up with other ways to meet the challenges. There was a lot of thought given to how we progress. This is why we went down the track of nominating over 70 sites across the Territory that were already appropriately zoned, and could be turned off effectively and quickly, because they were close to services, roads and infrastructure. That was a way you could turn off land much more quickly than going into a greenfield site like Weddell.
I will talk about Weddell for a second, because the member for Nelson demonstrated tonight that there was a lot of planning, rhetoric and discussions involved. As a new government coming in, we are not ignoring that information.
There was some fundamental planning done. What was not done was real planning around infrastructure and subdivisions. That kind of work had not been done. In fact, it did not even appear in the budget for the former government. Weddell, for them, was also a bit over the horizon. They will not admit to it; they will say it was tomorrow. But I suggest, looking at the forward estimates the previous government had put forward, it was well over the horizon. It is still there for us.
I put it to you, member for Nelson, that in 2011 the previous government, through a PricewaterhouseCoopers report, estimated the cost of infrastructure for the first 2300 dwellings to be in the order of $180m. That is well over $200m today. If you break that down for those blocks of land, the first blocks of land to be released in Weddell would come at a cost of around $87 000 to the taxpayer. That is before you have any profit margins, developer margins or anything like that – around $87 000 of taxpayers’ money.
Compare that to this government’s approach to Holtze, Berrimah Farm and a number of these sites we have nominated across the Territory. When you break down the money we are putting into that, working with private developers, it will cost the taxpayer around $1900 per block to turn off.
When you do not have the luxury of money – and I heard the member for Nelson before talk about Canberra and well planned cities like that. I agree, Weddell should be a well-planned city like that. However, it takes hundreds of millions of dollars for that to occur. If you appreciate the position this government is in, the responsible position we take is not to just borrow more money, putting Territorians further and further into debt. It is about managing the debt and deficit situation, and working out strategies to release enough land quickly enough so you do not drag Territorians into mortgages of 30 and 40 years to pay off what should be a much cheaper option.
For work we are doing at the moment, particularly in Palmerston, we are building in, for the first time, price points to contracts. Some of the developers do not like this because it is taking blocks of land, even in Palmerston, that are selling for $300 000. I do not understand how a block of land can cost that much. It is what the market is withstanding – because of what? Because there is a market due to the lack of land release.
The price points we are building into these latest blocks are between $160 000 and $180 000. That is a remarkable turnaround from the $300 000 people are paying at the moment. The way to do that is to provide options such as the size of lots. You will always have people who want to live in the rural area on five, 10, 20 or 40 acres and beyond, but, equally, you will always have people who want to live in the city in an apartment or a terrace home which, at the moment, you cannot build in the Northern Territory. Maybe with changes to the Planning Scheme in the future you will have a market for terrace homes. People can get into the market in their very first home and then, at a later stage, move up and, one day, maybe live in a rural area. Providing flexibility within the Planning Scheme is the way to provide choice and marketing opportunities for people which they can afford.
I want to clarify a couple of things. With the excellent marketing the previous Labor government did, you would swear Weddell was their baby. You would swear they built Palmerston, and they have done so many things such as bringing the railway to Darwin. These are the things you would think the former Labor government had done. But there has been a great deal of good planning undertaken over many years by successive governments. My criticism of the former Labor government is they did not release land quickly enough to keep up with the market. The direct result of that was land prices going through the roof and too many Territorians today suffering high mortgages and a high cost of living because of the lack of land release. So we have looked a number of strategies.
The member for Nelson talked about Hughes Noonamah and those types of areas. In a perfect world, you would be using government money to spend on a city like Weddell, and good planning. But if you accept the position there is no money and there is the debt situation we were given, you have to come up with other ideas. So this government has done a number of things. We are working with private developers and entering into arrangements with them to take on subdivisions and large suburbs. We are also improving the processes within government because that is (1) attracting investment and (2) doing what we should be doing in removing red tape and fixing what became, over many years, over-bureaucracy within many of our departments, particularly Planning.
I will move on to the fact we are a pragmatic government. One of the reasons we held off Weddell was because people were hurting, which is critical to understand and appreciate. Even if government did have $500m to throw in and get Weddell started and have land turned off one or two years from now, it still would not have dealt with the immediate concern we have. People are hurting with the cost of living driven on the back of high land, rental and mortgage costs. We have looked at and researched other ways to turn off land quickly, using the assistance of private developers and improving government processes so we can provide some level of ease in the market.
We are already seeing it. Quinten Kilian, in an article in the NT News, said they are finally starting to see signs that the high cost of rentals is easing. That is the first sign in a long time. Given the economy is spinning along extremely well, for us to put enough land release into the market where you will start to finally see a turn is evidence the plans we have implemented are starting to work. Our plan to fast-track existing developments and proceed with Holtze and Berrimah Farm will do exactly that. We will deliver more houses to fix what the Labor government left us with, which is basically a crazy mess.
There are a few things I have been very concerned about recently with some of the approaches by the member for Nelson. I know he probably thinks there is some frustration out there. We are working damn hard to try to find ways to reduce the cost of living. In the areas of planning, will you upset somebody? Yes, absolutely. You will upset many people. But sometimes you have to look at the bigger picture and ways you can solve the problem. There is a problem. We accept that the cost of living in the Northern Territory is bordering on being out of control unless we keep a close eye on it and tackle it the best way we can.
I even admit there have been some planning decisions I have made in the last 12 to 18 months which under perfect conditions I would not have made. But we do not have perfect conditions in the Northern Territory. We have land prices that are out of the reach of so many. If there is anyone in this room who has at least half a heart, you would agree with me in supporting the government in initiatives to reduce the cost of land. If we can do that, we then reduce the cost of housing on the land, which ultimately flows on to somebody’s mortgage, investment or the rents people are paying today. You would be applauding us, not attacking us.
I admit and I appreciate that this government, and I as the minister, can do more to consult with people in the rural area. However, I know how much work has gone into what the Planning Commission does, and we are doing in consultation. There are many developers who do not like to consult, particularly too soon, because of what happens with that information, which spreads like wildfire. If the information is wrong, then you are putting out bushfires all the time. Much of the information recently – even information out of your own office, member for Nelson – has not been correct and has caused angst in the general public.
I ask and plead that if some information is about to come from your office, you make a phone call to me – you have my number – or if you want a briefing on anything, please, this is what we are here for. I want to consult, I want to be inclusive with what you are doing. I particularly want to ensure we are doing the right thing for rural residents ...
Mr Wood: What information went wrong? I would not do that on purpose.
Mr CHANDLER: I am sure you would not do it on purpose. But the problem is sometimes people will hear something has happened then, all of a sudden, it becomes gospel …
Mr Wood: They might have it wrong.
Mr CHANDLER: Whether you like it or not, people in the rural area respect you, member for Nelson, and believe what you say. I have had a number of people come into my office to talk. I will give you an example. The member for Nelson told me – talking about Kowandi – that area was always going to be zoned rural. I had to say it could not have been zoned rural because …
Mr Wood: I would not have said that.
Mr CHANDLER: I do not believe you did, but people would come into …
Mr Wood: I said it should be zoned rural.
Mr CHANDLER: Yes. I know how people work too. People will turn that around and say the member for Nelson said X. They respect you out there, and what you say is gospel. I hope any of the messages which are sent to people in the rural area are based on fact. The only way we can improve that is that you and I – my office, your office – decide to meet more regularly and be more consultative with what we are working on. However, it has to be done with a level of confidence that information which is shared with you is then not spread, because people do muck it up and get the wrong impression.
Yes, there are many things we are working on at different stages. Some of it is highly confidential because of the commercial nature and the people who are sometimes involved. Some of these things may be years away from being turned off to never happening because (1) it may not stack up financially, and (2) public pressure in a certain area may cause the development to fall over. There are many stages of development; they do not just happen overnight. There are processes we go through, whether it is rezoning stages or development consent required through the DCA because the application has come through. And there are EDPs and processes.
Even with exceptional development permits where I am ultimately the one who decides those processes, I still use the Development Consent Authority as my authority to undertake the process – the public hearings and consultations. I then rely on their reports to make a decision, including having my own department look at things and provide me with that information. I hope people have faith that there is a process involved, and it is not just that a developer walks in – and sometimes this is the perception people have – and says, ‘This is what I want to do and can you sign there, minister’, then they go and do it.
It does not work like that. It never worked like that under the Labor government; it never worked like that under the previous CLP government. There are processes which are accountable today, as the member for Nelson rightly knows. He has taken a couple of FOIs out recently with regard to me and particular processes ...
Mr Wood: I have been waiting for 30 days for some of them which was one page – not from you, but the department.
Mr CHANDLER: You will get that information. I welcome FOIs because they will uncover that there is a process. Some of them are very long-winded processes, but there is a process in place. That is all about good planning.
What I have often found, though, with dealing with the member for Nelson – and I am not picking on you, Gerry – is many of your constituents come directly to me and do not bother going to you because they know what your answer will be. They might be pro-development and have an idea to develop their land. They will not go to you because there is the perception, ‘Do not go to Gerry because he will not support that’. So they come to me to talk about a development. As I said to you before, you are well respected in your electorate and people do listen to you, but there are people who want areas of the rural area to develop.
I often use this place to describe that it was my great-grandparents who had 120 acres in Coburg. They used to run milking cows in Coburg. If anyone knows Coburg in Melbourne today, there are no milking cows ...
Mr Wood: There is plenty of milk in the lattes.
Mr CHANDLER: There is plenty of milk in the carton in the shop.
Cities grow over the years. Unless we could draw a line on the sand and say, ‘No development in the Howard Springs area; we are going to jump over and go somewhere else.’ These are strategies worth considering: the city of Darwin would always be protected by a rural area and further development further out. I am not sure how Weddell would factor into that.
Planning is always something will polarise people; they are going to be right on your side or right off it. Are the ideas that come through from the member for Nelson the views of the entire electorate or the member for Nelson’s views on a particular subject? The member for Nelson often comes in here and uses the phrase, ‘I am not against development’, but I am yet to see something you have supported out there ..
Mr Wood: Coolalinga?
Mr CHANDLER: No, in my time. Right?
Mr Wood: The block next door to Coolalinga? Woolworths Coolalinga?
Mr CHANDLER: That is the great wall you were complaining about. You called it that wall of China ...
Mr Wood: No, you do not understand. All of Churcher’s estate.
Mr CHANDLER: What I am saying is there will always have to be a balance when it comes to development, and not only in the city.
You are right, that wall you talked about in the CBD – I cannot stand it. I would dearly love to have no height limits in the city whatsoever. But the trade-off to that is buildings are not allowed to take up their entire footprint. The footprint is reduced so there is a major gap between each building to preserve views, allow for breezes to flow and, more importantly, allow for walkability between buildings.
As the member for Nelson pointed out – and I thoroughly agree – when you see a wall of buildings like that from the street level, what can you do? Nothing. If there were gaps between buildings, walkability, coffee shops, tree-lined streets and bench seats for people to sit on – I have visited cities where there is the concept of lovely leafy little laneways and streets between buildings where people have put in coffee shops, or a few seats to sit on, lovely gardens and water falls. On the street level, they have made the city exciting and liveable and cooled the city down. They have done some amazing things to turn city development around.
That is a bad example of planning. I totally agree we have to change that. If we are to save the CBD, we have to change the Planning Scheme right here and now.
In regard to the rural area, there will always be challenges, because not everyone has the same view. Some people want development. I get pressure from people every day who want development, for a number of reasons. It is not all about making money. In some cases, it is about ensuring their children have a future in the rural area. They want their children to be able to build houses in the rural area on existing land. There will be polarised views about the rural area.
One commitment I give the member for Nelson tonight is, although I cannot support this motion as it is written today, I will commit to working with you in a more consultative manner about developments in the rural area, so I understand your and your constituents’ views. But you must also understand some of the pressures and ideas put forward from rural residents – your constituents – so you get a better understanding and a bigger picture of what we are trying to deal with.
I agree with you that good planning is essential. I put it on the record again, have there been some decisions in the last 12 or 18 months that should not be considered good planning? Absolutely. I would make a different decision if we had a perfect situation. We do not, we have a government in a lot of debt and deficit and we are trying to turn off land as quickly as we can. We cannot always do something like Weddell tomorrow. Do I want to see Weddell in the future? Yes, it will happen, but in the future.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for initiating this debate. It is very important in the development of the Litchfield area. Once again, he is very prepared and has a lot of documentation. The one thing you can say about the member for Nelson is he is a true advocate for the people he represents in the electorate of Nelson. In his history, as the former Litchfield Shire President, he has a long-standing interest in service delivery, appropriate planning and maintaining the lifestyle of residents in the Darwin, Palmerston and Litchfield regions.
We have heard tonight that the members for Nelson and Goyder worked quite closely over a number of years around the important issue of planning in the Litchfield and rural area. I also thank the minister for Planning for responding, and understand he will be working closely with the member for Nelson in future, opening his doors and giving his phone number to the member for Nelson so he can ring him on any issues, although the member for Nelson does not agree with any planning in rural area, as the minister said. I appreciate the word of the minister for Planning that he will undertake to do that. However, I disagree with him a little. He could have supported this motion as it is.
I am a great supporter of the rural area. I spent my younger years in the leafy Jingili suburb in Freshwater Road. Then, after a family loss, we moved to Darwin River, where I lived from 11 years of age. I finished schooling at Howard Springs and Taminmin High School. Those years were very important to me. I lived on a big block of three separate properties with my paternal grandfather and my uncles.
I have great memories of growing up in Jingili and in the rural area in the early 1980s. I do not think there were many 11-year-olds with their own car who could hoon around the property, going down to our lake and dam, enjoying rural life. What the member for Nelson said about our children having the opportunity to have horses, safely ride their quad bikes around properties with helmets on and the existence of rural life struck a chord with me.
It is a lifestyle choice. That is what we must, fundamentally, remember. People move to the rural area to enjoy the lifestyle; they do not want the hustle and bustle. Sometimes people take the mickey out of Darwin; it is not a big capital city like Melbourne or Sydney. But to some people it is too big and that is why they move to the rural area. It used to be Howard Springs, Humpty Doo and further on, but unfortunately, due to progress and the population growth of the Territory and Darwin in particular, those areas are becoming more and more populated. The people who have moved there are long-term residents and stay for a reason: because they want to live rurally. They want that existence of not having to complain about somebody next door when their music is too loud or anything like that. The neighbour might be a kilometre away; it was even further, in our instance, when we moved to Darwin River.
That is the important aspect the member for Nelson is trying to get at: that people live in the rural area for a reason. They want the space, the lifestyle, the peace and quiet, and a proximity to nature which the large rural blocks deliver. That is why they made a choice many years ago, and people are still making those choices. I was a bit shocked with ‘Noonamah Ridge’. I was getting a bit worried about that. As the shadow minister for Planning, the lack of planning and consultation around these rural blocks and the future planning of the Litchfield area is a huge concern.
We have to get this right. That is why I thank the member for Nelson for bringing this motion to the House. There is no going back; once this is done, it is done. The minimum lot size for a rural resident must remain at 1 ha and not 0.4 ha. It is being promoted by developers and the Planning Commission that blocks smaller than 1 ha should be located within villages of district centres.
Past governments, including this one, issued many plans. The member for Nelson had a plan with the member for Goyder when she was in opposition in the former Labor government. They got together and issued their own rural living – was it called rural living plan or rural centre plan?
Mr Wood: Rural Centre Plan.
Mr VOWLES: Rural Centre Plan. The more people who speak about planning, no matter if it is urban, rural or remote, the better opportunities you will have to get it right. That is what people live in the rural area for. They want to get the planning right; they do not want small blocks. It is an opportunity some people will take; as the minister was saying, some people want smaller blocks. They might want to subdivide their blocks to build a dwelling for their children to live in, or something similar. That is the choice the owners have.
When we have rural developments coming up which have been going through the Planning Commission or are proposed, it is quite alarming for me, as somebody who was born and raised here, that these blocks are getting smaller and smaller. There seems to be a lack of consultation. That is why I was very happy to hear the minister say he will contact and have open dialogue with the member for Nelson and, I am sure, the member for Goyder, about rural planning ...
Mr Wood: And the member for Daly.
Mr VOWLES: And the member for Daly, is that right? I did not think he mentioned you, mate, but I am sure you will be in those discussions because it is important. As I said, once you get this plan out, you cannot go back. We have seen the Draft Greater Darwin Regional Land Use Plan issued.
I am going to speak briefly on what is a big issue for us because it is still on the plan, that is, the Elizabeth River dam. It is a huge issue. I ask the minister, as the responsible minister – as the Chief Minister said – surely they are not going to dam the Elizabeth River? It is still on the plan and that is concerning for many people.
I go back to what the member for Goyder said on 7.30 NT about the Elizabeth River dam:
She also expressed concerns about the urban sprawl in the rural area, which we are talking about tonight, and the lack of detail in the land use plan.
I can understand why the member for Nelson has put this motion. I and a number of my colleagues in opposition are obviously very keen to discuss that tonight
Rural living is compatible with small, medium-scale industry such as farming, horticulture, aquaculture and niche market tourism, as I am sure the member for Daly is fully aware. We stand by our record when we were in government of five new suburbs in Palmerston and Weddell. The minister mentioned we might have had a glossy brochure about Weddell, but we had plans and were ready to go with Weddell for 45 000 residents. This is why we have to get the planning right. That is why we are here tonight debating this motion.
I am sure the member for Nelson might have already mentioned it, as a former Labor government, our approach is against us sometimes. We are not about a policy of development at all costs, which is what this CLP government is doing. It seems not many proposals, planning processes or opportunities which have gone on to the minister have been turned down. That is why the member for Nelson has raised this rural plan. We are talking about small blocks, and that the government does not go ahead with this plan to develop Holtze Howard Springs into a suburb of Palmerston with 9500 blocks. It is deeply concerning.
Mr Wood: With 36 000 people.
Mr VOWLES: Which is, as the member for Nelson has just informed me, 36 000 people. I am sure, as the Minister for Health found out, that very vocal bunch in and around that Holtze Howard Springs area will make their voices heard. I am sure their voices will be heard many more times over the next year or two.
Our economic development must be sustainable, environmentally sensitive and not impact adversely on the amenity and lifestyle of our communities. Above all, we must listen to our communities about their aspirations and the type and scope of development they would prefer and choose to live in. I support the member for Nelson’s comments earlier. The member for Nelson is asking – and we have been asking – this government to have a regional approach to planning. Do not ram things through – consult! There has been a lack of consultation on planning around the Territory. We need to make sure there is a reasonable approach to all planning and that we are listening, as opposed to arrogant contempt for the community viewpoint, which is not a strength of this government.
The member for Goyder has made her views on the Darwin regional plan crystal clear in regard to the Elizabeth River dam, as I said. The members for Nelson and Goyder oppose the dam as does the opposition. However, once again this government is refusing to listen to the opposition, and the members for Nelson and Goyder.
There were nearly 90 submissions about the plan. We have spoken to many of the people who have contacted us saying, ‘What is this dam still doing on the plan?’ How can you be looking at damming the Elizabeth River? The plan is still to create a 870 ha lake and 40 km of waterfront land. This is an old plan from the 1980s or 1990s the CLP had, and it was almost a mirror image of the regional use plan of former minister Tim Baldwin, who might have been the Planning minister at the time. It is almost identical where the Elizabeth River was dammed. In today’s costs, we believe this canal estate will cost roughly $190m to develop. We will see how that goes.
I am asking the minister to take some control and initiative and take the dam off the plan. You cannot dam the Elizabeth River. The member for Blain knows that but I think he put it in one of his brochures. The member for Drysdale knows you cannot do it because people would have been talking to her. The member for Brennan, the other Palmerston member, knows because people surely would have said, ‘Do not dam the Elizabeth River’. It is pretty simple.
Regarding the resurrection of this old plan and the CLP’s obsession with damming the Elizabeth River, it is time to move forward, listen to Territorians, the opposition, the members for Nelson and Goyder, and maybe the member for Daly. I am sure he is against damming the Elizabeth River. The impacts environmentally would be significant. I do not think anybody supports it.
The obvious conclusion is the CLP canal estate comes first and the views of the rural residents come last. We agree with the member for Nelson that the CLP should keep its election promise to develop Weddell as the next major urban centre for the greater Darwin region. I know there are other members keen to speak on this debate. I was not going to take too much time but I thought it was very important, not only as the shadow minister for Lands and Planning but as a former rural resident, a supporter and person who has many friends and family living in the rural area who have come to me very concerned about the lack of consultation and these small blocks.
Mr Deputy Speaker, we need to ensure we get this right. We will keep fighting for the rural area to make sure the Planning minister has some control, does the right thing, does not make smaller blocks which would impact on people who want to live a rural lifestyle, and we give them the opportunity to do that.
Mr BARRETT (Blain): Mr Deputy Speaker, I met with the Litchfield Council recently and its members were very excited about the initiatives this Giles government is using to develop north Australia. I spent a couple of hours there and went through Google Earth camera all around Litchfield on a virtual tour. I went through everything the Litchfield Council is looking at doing or would like to do. We discussed what the Litchfield Council would like government to do, what sort of plans and visions it had, and what we could do to help with these ideas.
The members are very excited about developments, particularly the ones in the Coolalinga area. We spent a lot of time talking about that. They are very excited about the increase in population in the area. There are several larger blocks that have been subdivided for rural living which will provide another choice for people wishing to live in the rural area.
There were other Crown land blocks belonging to the government they were looking at, saying they would like us to release those. If we could do that, developers would be able to continue to create that option for people who enjoy the rural lifestyle.
Litchfield Council has some great visions for opening up different lot sizes, from larger blocks down to quarter acre blocks. The reason? Because it understands there are …
Mr Wood: Where?
Mr BARRETT: Gerry! I will tell you.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please refer to the member by his electorate name, not by his name, thank you.
Mr BARRETT: Sorry, member for Nelson.
The reason? Because they understand there are many elderly people in the rural area who do not want to move away from their networks and community and into town. As they grow older, they are unable to manage such large blocks and they need to be given the option to stay in the area where their networks and friends are in the community they have lived in for a long time, and which they love.
The Litchfield area is large and contains some great opportunities for business. Here is an interesting, fun fact: there are more businesses in the Litchfield area than there are in the Palmerston area. This means some business types, like transport companies, are looking to move out to where land is less expensive. Possibilities include trailer laydown yards, light industrial areas, service centres for the quarries that lie further beyond and agricultural service companies.
It was great to see the vision the council has, and the mayor’s willingness to work with businesses, developers, residents and government to navigate through the tricky tides of change and see the rural area change in such a way that is positive and good for the majority, and that provides the amenities necessary to service that growing population without losing the culture, heritage and feel of the place.
The rural area has a culture ingrained; it is a unique place. Although the face of it will change, which is inevitable, perhaps the member for Nelson could be disposed to look at ways of ensuring the culture of the rural area remains intact and there are legacies put in place that connect the newcomers to the rural area that embraced them and assimilated them into that culture. The member for Nelson might well be risking ostracising newcomers to the rural area because they could not afford a big enough block. As the population changes, I encourage a move towards embracing people into that rural area.
Planning is very important and is also very divisive. People have different ideas about what the future of the Northern Territory should look like. All cities grow and there are movements of boundaries over time. Darwin is no different.
One of the saddest things about Australia is the sprawl which sometimes occurs on some of the best farm land in the country. We talk about having available land for agriculture, what a problem it is and that we do not have enough arable land for growing food, while the Sunshine Coast houses some of the most fertile land in Australia.
The city will evolve, and making legislation that stops that progression is dangerous. The population of Darwin is moving outwards, which will put pressure on the rural area and the lifestyle of the people who live there.
I recall the outrage when the lights went in at Howard Springs when I was a young bloke. I recall people saying the neighbourhood would go downhill from there. However, the government needs to govern for the greatest good to the greatest number. Right now there are many people, even in the rural area, who wish to allow smaller blocks than the motion presented by the member for Nelson would allow.
The movement of people is inevitable. We will see that the large rural blocks will be further away. It might take 50 years. I did not hear the same issues raised by Litchfield Council, which sees some of these areas presented for smaller blocks being made available as a great opportunity.
We have been talking about Holtze, and in this instance the Litchfield Council sees this as a great opportunity to create a compromise. This compromise will mean they will be able to collect rates in these new areas and funnel some of those funds towards the further development in roads and other infrastructure in the rural area. The view the member for Nelson is taking may not be the view of all the people in the rural area. A compromise in these areas is wise because it diversifies the income streams and means residents living on larger rural blocks will be able to enjoy the services this extra funding will provide.
There are those in the rural area who would be wise enough to see this and manage it. There will be people in the rural area who wish to subdivide their properties in the future when they are older, to make their retirement simpler. Many people bought in the rural area hoping one day this pressure to subdivide would happen and, as such, they would be able to make money on this. I also acknowledge there are those who live in the rural area who would like to maintain their lifestyle as it is. The trick of governing is balancing all of these pressures and working out solutions that affect the least number of people in a negative way.
There is a wise saying that you cannot please all of the people all the time. This motion may have the effect of pleasing a few and making a lot of other people very unhappy.
The notion of this dam keeps raising its head; I remember it materialised during the Blain by-election and was created as an issue. It was a non-issue that became an issue. I remember the glossy brochures with the ‘going, going, gone’ slogan – how to scare a bunch of people 101. The Labor Party has an obsession with raising this non-issue. Why? Because so many people have already said there is no dam and there will not be one. Keep scaring people, because you clearly do not have anything real to complain about.
Mr Deputy Speaker, due to the restrictive nature of this motion, I cannot support it.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this motion. The essence of this motion is something my community is passionate about on a different level. The member for Nelson is passionate about protecting the rural lifestyle, similar to me and the Nightcliff and Rapid Creek residents fighting to preserve our tropical seaside lifestyle.
I am astounded at some of the comments I have heard from the other side. People need to remember that planning is a science, it is not about looking at what we can get off blocks or what is convenient. We need to plan.
Darwin was a planned city, which you can see through Alawa and those suburbs further north which were beautifully planned with major arterial roads and smaller roads to cul-de-sacs. Each suburb had a school, a park and a small shopping village. Planned suburbs are easy to live in. We are seeing changes to planning that are ruining the nature of our suburbs. The spot rezoning we are continually seeing more of is ruining the planning of the past and affecting residents. This motion talks about planning which will change the rural lifestyle.
When I was at school a long time ago I undertook a study of Palmerston. Palmerston was a completely planned city, as you would know. The area that is now Woolworths was meant to be medium-density housing. I understand from my studies that was changed by the government at some stage in the late 1980s or early 1990s to become retail, which means we now have a horrible intersection where the roundabout is, with Coles and Target on one side of the road and Woolworths and other smaller shops on the other side. It is not pedestrian or car friendly.
That is an example of people overruling planning. That was a planned area, designed to have Coles up to Target and across to the bus depot. That was all meant to be commercial, and across the road was to be medium-density housing layering into lower-density housing.
The reason the member for Nelson is so passionate is because people are fighting for a lifestyle. As a planned city we should have high-density housing around our hubs and in our city, and suburban homes and rural living. People should be able to make a choice about what they want. It is something I am passionate about. In my community we have a beautiful lifestyle. We have a village and some higher-density areas, but we also have large tropical blocks that are under threat. I am talking about 1200 m2, beautiful blocks that let people have a home with airflow around them, and which creates living without air conditioning. This spot rezoning we are seeing more of, particularly from this government, is increasingly frustrating.
The minister for Planning was kind enough to come to Nightcliff to hold a briefing. I explained to him the passion our community feels, similar to those in the rural area. He was very dismissive tonight of the 1000 people who have signed a petition, so he would have been equally dismissive of the 50 or so residents who signed a recent petition in our community against the four-storey development proposed for one of our suburban streets. The residents there got together. I know you think 75 ED nurses are worth laughing at, so you probably do not want to hear about 50 concerned local residents. But it is important to us. It was important enough for them to come together as a community, to have some meetings and to visit me to collect signatures. They went out of their way.
The proposed development in this case will significantly interfere with the amenity of surrounding homes; the size of the block is inadequate for the proposed increase traffic flow, which will impact on the safety of residents and pedestrians who use this circuit; and it will create congestion at the entry and exit point. They went on to talk about on-site parking issues and a lack of provision for visitor parking. However, what they are really protesting about is a change to their lifestyle – a simple spot rezoning change without any planning. Those residents were very passionate. They went through the process with the DCA.
I will read one of the comments made to the DCA which they sent to me as the local member, in their objection to that development. One resident said, ‘The current occupancy of the land is single dwelling. The proposed development is for nine dwellings. How will this ninefold increase in occupancy impact on the provision of electricity, water and sewerage services to other dwellings in the street?’
In my electorate office, we check development applications every week. Probably a couple of times a month we get one, look at it, and if it is something simple like a shed going up on someone’s property, we do not take any further action. But if it is a change to the zoning or will impact on surrounding homes, we make the effort to letterbox nearby homes. If you drive a particular way to and from work, you might not realise the house behind you and two down will be turned into a four- or five-storey block with nine units.
We had another property in the area which I spoke to the minister about. As I understand, Power and Water objected to the property being rezoned from single dwelling to multi-dwelling because of the increased pressure on essential services and the increased cost. The school objected because it is already on a traffic intersection point. Yet the minister for Planning rezoned it. We were astounded in our community, because this block was amongst single-dwelling blocks. Hearing the comments from the minister tonight probably explains why that was rezoned.
However, I will go on with my comments from residents around this other block, which echo so many in our community. They talked about air conditioners, where they will be located, the noise impact on surrounding residents, the introduction of many vehicles, the architecture of the balconies facing out onto the street not keeping in appearance with the street, developments that rely on the foliage of neighbouring properties to be for visual buffering, changing the character of our suburban streets by having units, nearby neighbours affected by fluorescent lights and additional vehicles coming and going. This is something I hear continually in my area.
I held a barbecue in one of the parks the other day. Since we last had a barbecue there, another unit tower had gone up. There is a tropical elevated home smack bang between two towers. The poor person in the middle eventually will give up. This is all spot rezoning. There is no master plan to it. The minister and I spoke about a master plan for the Nightcliff/Rapid Creek area, and I urge him to again consider that, as that is what residents would like. Consult with the community.
As for rural residents, member for Nelson, I have been a rural resident for approximately four days of my life. When I was about 14 my parents decided I could not miss some school when they had to visit family down south, so they sent me to Howard Springs. I still hold memories of those four days. It was great fun on our friend’s block. They had a flying fox, and it is a unique lifestyle.
We have friends who live there now. When they bought there, we all said, ‘We will not be coming to visit you’. We camp when we visit, because it is a bit of a trek. Just as I want to live in Nightcliff and Rapid Creek with a seaside lifestyle, they want to live with some space and have a shed with a few boats. They just want space and that ambience – what this government is proposing to take that away.
I speak with passion about my suburb. That is why I am speaking in support of this motion by the member for Nelson, because it is important, as members of this parliament, that we stand up for every aspect of our unique lifestyle, and put pressure on this government to stop spot rezoning, stop these changes and have a decent plan for our city.
The member for Blain said: ‘This is not about the greatest good for the greatest number, this is about good planning, splitting blocks, subdividing them to make money’. Those are appalling comments. That is not what this motion is about; it is about preserving a unique rural lifestyle.
When Nightcliff and Rapid Creek residents came into this parliament they were arguing against the proposed Nightcliff island. That the government has issued a lease for a man-made island in the harbour without any consultation shows its arrogance. The government really needs to stop. It needs to start listening to local residents, to the community, to the residents of Darwin and the rural area, so we can see the views of the community reflected in planning decisions.
The minister for Planning tonight said that he feels the planning decisions in the last two years, in an ideal world, would not have been made. Minister, that is completely wrong. Planning is a science; there is no room for compassion. If you feel that is the way then if you cannot take the heat you should get out of the kitchen. We can talk about examples within all our communities where planning was ignored with spot rezoning. We deal with those issues every day in our community.
I urge you as a government to start listening to the people. You are so arrogant and you have ignored my community …
Mr Chandler: I went to your office to talk about planning.
Ms FYLES: And you absolutely ignored …
Mr Chandler: Tell me what minister from a Labor government came to the opposition’s offices to talk about planning issues?
Members: None.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can people stop the discussions across the floor. They should talk through the Speaker, thank you.
Ms FYLES: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I pick up on the interjection. You came to our community and we told you of our huge concerns around a rezoning, and two days later you rezoned that block. Every month we have a spot rezoning. In the community of Nightcliff and Rapid Creek we are seeing spot rezonings that are causing huge stress and impact on local residents. We already have traffic flow issues, and a primary school that is completely full. There are pockets of Nightcliff and Rapid Creek that can be developed, but it needs to be in a planned and coordinated way, not with the granting of five-year leases for a man-made island.
Minister, I pick up on your comments where you said you have a heart. I have a huge problem with that comment and remind you that planning is a science. Not everyone wants to live in an air conditioned house or a unit block, but that is how you seem to want to shape our beautiful tropical city.
Like the residents who are fighting for their tropical seaside living, the people of the rural area want rural blocks, space, acreage and a bush lifestyle. That is the essence of this motion. We do not want to see small blocks; we want to see large blocks. We want to see options for people when they come to live here.
Part of the reason people live in Darwin is because they do not want live in a Sydney or Melbourne. They want to live a unique lifestyle. They want to have those options.
The Planning Commission quietly released its Towards a Darwin Regional Land Use Plan late last year and nowhere in that plan was the Nightcliff island proposal. There are so many unanswered questions in our planning at the moment. Comments from the community show they feel these developments would further destroy Darwin’s main appeal. People do not want to live in another Sydney or Melbourne. They come to the Territory and live in our towns, whether it is Katherine, Alice Springs or Darwin. They come here to live and enjoy the natural environment. These planning decisions are changing the shape of our city.
Just as my community has made it clear, the member for Nelson’s community has made it clear with 1000 people signing the petition that was handed to parliament today. I have spoken to friends in the rural area who have all highlighted that they have stopped when the member for Nelson has been beside the road with his mobile office.
I know the member for Goyder is equally passionate about her rural lifestyle. You just have to have a look at her Facebook page. That is great, we need to have unique lifestyles that suit different people.
I remind the Planning minister that earlier this year in parliament he said he has faith in our processes, but tonight you have shown your disregard for these comments.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this motion. It is important we fight for our tropical city and our rural living. I commend the motion to the House.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Mines and Energy): Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to contribute tonight to the member for Nelson’s motion regarding development of the Litchfield area.
I can give an indication now that I will not be supporting the motion and I have a great deal of faith in the current planning processes of the Northern Territory, especially in our Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment, who works very hard in this space. I will touch on, while I am on my feet, some of the things happening within the Litchfield area for which I have responsibility and maintain a great interest. The things happening in these types of developments sit within my area of interest and responsibility and have effect on planning issues.
There are many exciting ventures already under way, or about to occur, in Darwin’s rural area. I often say Katherine is the centre of the universe, but you could be forgiven for thinking the people in Litchfield think it is about to become the centre of the universe as well. I am sure they think they are very important, and I do not take that away from them because it is terrific to be proud of the area in which you live.
My portfolios of Mines and Energy, and Primary Industry and Fisheries are responsible for many of the industry sectors already established and thriving in the Litchfield area. First, I want to talk about the Top End’s extractive industry for which my Department of Mines and Energy is responsible for regulating and licensing. The extractive industry, in layman's terms, means extracting sand and gravel and the production of crushed stone products, the essential ingredients necessary for making the materials needed for building any infrastructure. That means no roads, rail, building or major projects can occur without material produced and supplied by our extractive industry.
Within the Litchfield area, there are many leases used by the extractive industry. Some might complain about the location of these leases within the Litchfield area, but their location is a major factor in driving down building costs. The further you have to transport material, the higher the expense for building. The Northern Territory’s extractive industry supplies the materials needed to build the infrastructure which supports the development of the Northern Territory.
Earlier this week, the Chief Minister announced the development of a $300m shopping centre on Roystonea Avenue in Palmerston. It is a great announcement and something this government’s worked very hard with the developer to achieve which will be a great boon for the Palmerston region.
In his announcement, the Chief Minister said:
This major development could not take place without the materials supplied by our local extractives industry. Some of the jobs created for this major project will be within the extractives industry, which is a great news story for that sector.
Another major project which is almost complete is the Australian Agricultural Company’s new $90m abattoir or meat processing facility under construction in the Litchfield area – specifically, in the Livingstone area 9 km south of Noonamah. Again, this major project would not be possible without the materials supplied by our local extractives industry.
The abattoir will help our pastoral industry as well by providing a market for livestock not suited for live export, and an alternative market in the advent of future disruptions to the live cattle trade. It will also provide an opportunity for diversification of the northern herd over time to supply cattle more suited to prime beef processing.
I note with interest the announcement earlier today by the Corrections minister that prisoners from the Darwin and Alice Springs Correctional Centres are making and installing the holding yards for AACo’s abattoir. I note the news coverage on that tonight and commend the minister for Corrections for the work he has done in that area. He was quite right when he said we would much rather see people in training and with jobs than on welfare. I highly commend the minister for corrections, who is doing a terrific job in that area and taking corrections to a new level.
While there is an extraction of building material from leases located within the Litchfield area, an important message for Territorians today is that no oil or gas exploration permits will be issued there. Across the Northern Territory all suburban locations, as well as Darwin’s rural area, are protected, as they are under a reserve block.
Another major industry in the Litchfield area is horticulture, for which my Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries is responsible. It is estimated that around 80% of all irrigated horticulture and agriculture production in the Top End takes place in the Litchfield area.
In regard to the motion it is particularly important to note the comments made today on ABC radio’s Country Hour by the NT Planning Commissioner, Gary Nairn, regarding the Draft Darwin Regional Land Use Plan. In an interview, Gary said while the draft plan identifies potential new residential areas in the Darwin rural area, it was critical that farming activities remain in this area, and that the draft Darwin regional plan had also identified new potential land suitable for agricultural and horticultural purposes.
The Territory’s horticulture industry includes fruit, vegetables, nurseries and cut flowers. This sector is valued at almost $200m a year to the Northern Territory economy. Asian vegetables are a small but rapidly growing section of the Northern Territory’s horticulture industry, and were recently valued at around $30m. With increasing demand for Asian vegetables from export and domestic markets, Northern Territory growers are uniquely situated to take advantage of this opportunity, and their high standards of production and post-harvest handling ensure a quality product is reaching the market place with a shelf life which meets consumers’ expectations.
While a wide variety of vegetables and herbs can be grown in the Northern Territory, our excellent seasonal conditions mean that premium quality produce can be grown year round. The major vegetables produced in the Territory include cucumber, bitter melon, okra, snake beans and pumpkin. In the 2012-13 season the value of cucumber production increased to an estimated $7.2m, up from $5.8m on the previous year. In fact, cucumber output weighed in at a fairly massive 2864 tonnes for the year. Who would have known the Northern Territory would be producing so many cucumbers? In the same period the value of production of okra was estimated at $13.7m, bitter melon production values were estimated at $9.8m, the snake bean production value was $9.5m and the production value of pumpkin was $9.7m.
My Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries recently conducted a project to address product quality and safety, which was specifically aimed at growers in the vegetable industry for whom English is not their first language. Many of these people live in the Litchfield area.
The project involved conducting workshops on grower properties and presenting material on the post-harvest management of vegetables, integrated pest management and sustainable water use. The project also funded Freshcare audits for 13 growers. Freshcare, the largest Australian on-farm assurance program for fresh produce, provides assurance that produce is fresh, safe to eat, has been prepared to customer specifications and legislative requirements and has been grown with care for the environment.
My department last year hosted a grower tour to Sydney so local growers could examine post-harvest problems in wholesale markets firsthand and see the retail outlets for their produce in Sydney. Much of this produce comes from the Litchfield area. More recently, a vegetable growing manual for the Top End of the Northern Territory was released. This has also been translated into Vietnamese with the help of funding from the Territory Natural Resource Management’s Caring for Country program, and was presented to the Vietnamese Farmers Association. My department was also able to secure funding from the Carbon Farming Futures’ Action on the Ground program to develop ways for growers to reduce nitrous oxide emissions from their horticulture crops with better nitrogen management.
Scientists from the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries are working with vegetable growers in the Darwin rural area to determine the best way to monitor nitrogen in vegetables, testing leaf, sap and soil, and looking for relationships to nitrous oxide emissions. Their aim is to work out how to develop better nitrogen management during the Wet Season, the off-season for growing vegetables in the Top End, by using cover crops to immobilise nitrogen in the soil, therefore preventing nitrous oxide emissions.
It is an exciting time to be involved in the Asian vegetable industry in the Top End. As I said, much of that is occurring in the Litchfield area. We are all aware that mangoes are the Top End’s greatest horticultural success story. It is an exciting time across the entire Northern Territory.
The County Liberals government has real plans and real vision for the development of northern Australia. Each geographic district of the Northern Territory has its key strengths. As I have said, the Litchfield area can and does supply many different facets across many different sectors, from our fruits and vegetables to building materials for our major projects. In economic development and potential, it is an exciting time for the Litchfield area.
To the heart of this motion, I say to the member for Nelson in bringing this before the House today I understand you are, essentially, doing what we all must do – holding on to what is unique about your area. As members of parliament, it is our right to do this, and it is what unites us. While we fight for our local areas, we all want to make the whole Territory a better place.
It is pleasing for me, as the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries, Mines and Energy, Land Resource Management, and Essential Services, that there are many incredible achievements under way in the Litchfield area. However, as a government, we must look at the Territory as a whole. We do this because we want to make the Territory better for all Territorians and not just a few.
With regard to this motion, I note that across the Territory we have a distinct lack of housing. This is something I feel in particular in my electorate of Katherine. I heed the words spoken by the member for Brennan about growth. The Territory is growing. We must accept this. I want to see development and I believe we can do that without losing what is special to the Territory’s way of life.
I was listening carefully to the comments the member for Nightcliff made in that regard, and I agree. Many people live here because it is not a Sydney or a Melbourne. With careful planning, we can provide a lifestyle to Territorians that is and remains different from that which we experience down south. But going about it by supporting a motion such as this will not get us to where we need to be, given many of the problems we face in the Northern Territory, such as the planning problems we have had in the past from the previous government – the lack of housing and land release – all go to make a picture that is difficult to manage. I have every faith in the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment to take care of this aspect of planning, particularly in the Litchfield area.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not support the motion, but I commend the member for Nelson on representing his electorate so well. It is something I know he is particularly passionate about. I enjoy listening to what the member for Nelson has to say about his electorate. He has every right to support the people of his electorate and do what he thinks is right for the people of his electorate. But at the end of the day, we also have to look at the greater picture and the greater good for the Northern Territory.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank everyone who has contributed. I will start last. Thank you, member for Katherine. I would like an opportunity one day to speak on why the rural area is so important, and not just from the horticulture, agricultural, tourist, extractive mining and environmental perspective that is so special. It is a great place and, of course, good planning protects that.
I will go back to the days when this plan was set in place. Land was set aside in Berry Springs and Lambells Lagoon for horticultural development, which was great. It was done because there was good water and soil in those areas. Something that is a problem in the rural area is the clash between rural development and extractive mining. There is no doubt areas south of Humpty Doo cause some issues for people living in that area.
While the minister is here I would like to say something about my views on subdivision. If anyone comes to me and says, ‘I would like to cut my block up in half’, I say to them, ‘No, if you are asking for a single block to be cut up’. That is why I complained about a certain block, you might understand.
If the minister decides to advertise that a section of the rural area be rezoned, let us look at it, but let us look at it carefully. If a government wants to rezone, you have to allow all landowners to rezone, not just a particular landowner to whom the minister gives special privileges.
It is not a simple case, as the member for Blain mentioned, of cutting the rural blocks up. I am not against 1 ha blocks. I am against quarter-acre blocks in the rural area. I am not against quarter-acre blocks in a district centre. It would not make any sense to have quarter-acre blocks next to 1 ha blocks. I have never been against smaller blocks. I have just said under good planning you put them in a certain area. When it comes to subdividing 2 ha blocks, then you need to do it in a logical and considered way.
I will tell you why there are issues. First, do people want to have neighbours? They come out there for a 2 ha block to enjoy the space. If you then subdivide the land, how much water do you have? You have to have town water for 1 ha blocks. Some blocks have it, but they might not have enough. You need adequate power otherwise you have to put in transformers.
If you have roads with 40 blocks, and you want to allow them to rezone their land so they can chop it into half-sized blocks, you then have the potential for 80 blocks. You have 40 developers. Who will pay for the upgrades of the infrastructure? If it is a road that has no water, someone will have to pay for the pipeline. If some of those people do not want to pay for the pipeline, it is not going to happen, especially if they are No 10 down the road, unless you want to pay $300 000 for a pipeline.
There are in-built issues that people need to have explained to them about why it is difficult to chop up existing 2 ha blocks. I say again it is not because I am opposed to it. How does the government do it in a way that does not upset residents already there, and at no cost to the government? I am not expecting the government to pay for the cost of a pipeline down a road that somebody wants because they want to make money out of their block. That is what most people do.
You have fundamentally difficult issues to do it properly if you have 40 individual developers. It is not a problem if a person has a large block of land. I have never been against 1 ha subdivisions.
When people come into my office that is what I tell them: I do not support individual blocks being subdivided. If it has the support of the people, if there is a practical way of doing it and if the government advertises it is interested in rezoning a section of land, I will look at it.
There is a gentleman out there who said, ‘I built my house on the back of my block of land’. Why? ‘So I can subdivide it and make some money in my retirement’. Hang on, he bought a 2 ha block. He has plans to cut it up. Sorry, he should have bought a smaller block. He knows there are 1 ha blocks in the rural area. Do not use what he thinks is a good idea as a means of making money by cutting up his block as a reason for changing things. It should be done on good planning grounds.
I need to make another explanation. Minister, I hate with a passion that people say I am anti-development. I supported Churcher’s first big subdivision on Anglesey Road. I supported Churcher’s second subdivision on Hicks Road and Rogers Circuit, the subdivision south of Humpty Doo on Goode Road, and the fourth subdivision on the Girraween Lagoon, which the council procrastinated about for so long you could hardly get the thing to operate. I supported Coolalinga and I got flack for it. I supported Fraser Henry’s subdivision of The Grange. Ask the council whether it supported some of the things he was putting there. I support the Spencely Road subdivision being put in.
I support planning in its right place. I hear people who do not understand planning making comments. The member for Blain said, ‘There are pressures on the rural area’. I say, ‘Read your own CLP documents’. These are not mine, this is what was put out when you were in opposition. This is one page of it. It says, ‘Planning for greater Darwin, a dynamic harbour city’. I did not put that out; that is the CLP’s plan. I support it, then am told I am talking rubbish.
I do not want to see the spread of Melbourne. I was brought up in Melbourne and I saw what sprawls do.
I always supported the plan that you have five cities around the Darwin Harbour with the harbour the centre. What you will do if you develop Hughes as a pseudo-Weddell is kill off the concept your CLP government promoted since 1990. It was promoted before that, which is what it is so hard. I stick up for what you planned.
You say you do not have the money. Hang on! What is your future projection of development? In the next two years, another 2000 houses and blocks? You should have some money in the bank by then, because you have made all these cuts and you have extra money from the GST. The ex-Treasurer told me how well you are going now because of where you have cut the cloth here and there. There is a bit of money going into the bank now. In two years’ time you might have money in the bank.
You are making decisions now saying, ‘We are broke’ or, ‘The Labor Party left us in a bad state of affairs’. I must admit I am sick of hearing that rhetoric. We were in debt, I do not deny that. However, some of that debt was essential debt, because if they had not done it we would not have the Weddell Power Station, the poo shooter and the Snell Street and Casuarina substations. They were things they had to do and go into debt for. Part of the reason for that is both governments did not do anything in years gone by.
The CLP believed you could run it until it breaks and then fix it. The CLP did not want to increase the tariffs because it looked bad. Of course, nothing happened. When it did happen, lots of money had to be spent. Then, when they spent a lot of money they got into trouble for it. Who put the pressure on the poo shooter? I sat here time after time listening to jokes about the poo shooter. When they built it at the cost of $80m or thereabouts they were blamed for being in debt. I am not saying they did not spend some money unwisely, do not get me wrong. However, sometimes I do not think there is fair criticism.
You say you are out of money, but will you be out of money in two years’ time? Will you have recovered enough money to start building Weddell? Are we being premature in allowing Hughes, Noonamah Ridge and that area to be developed? I am not against that area being developed; it is just out of proportion. I have said that to Gary Nairn, the Chair of the Planning Commission. It is well out of proportion with the rural area; 45 000 people are more than is in Palmerston at present. How many high schools, primary schools, day care centres and libraries are there in Palmerston? That is what comes with a the city. Will this be that? I hope it is the government’s role to ensure that comes in a coordinated way.
This is not coordinated, this is one person saying, ‘Nice block of land’. They have good plans, do not get me wrong’, but it is basically a piece of real estate being chopped up. There is nothing wrong with that, but it has to be part of what I believe to be the government’s visionary role to develop the area in a certain manner. That is not happening here.
You mentioned making some decisions and that you overrode the DCA. You overrode the DCA about Humpty Doo. What annoyed me so much is that the government has land in Humpty Doo. It can sell residential land in Humpty Doo tomorrow; it has a heap of it which has been sitting there for ages. I could not convince the previous government, which said there was not enough infrastructure. The infrastructure went in and they said there was still not enough infrastructure. There is residential land in Humpty Doo that has not been developed; there has been one duplex in 20 years.
Rural people will live there. The good member for Blain talked about one-quarter acre blocks for older people, which I agree with. A retirement village would be better than giving them one-quarter acre blocks. There is the Freds Pass district centre with two schools, as well as a childcare centre. The rest belongs to the government. It is down there for residential and some commercial development.
Berry Springs has a district centre. It has a new shop, a post office, the member for Daly’s new office and a hardware store. It is in the centre of the tourism section, and it is your land. Have you developed it? You could develop it, but you have not. You have gone away from the original plans and developed something else down the track. I am not talking about rubbish; I am talking about what is in your plans.
The minister also talked about people saying I might have given the wrong information. I held four public meetings in the rural area, at Wallaby Holtze Road, Howard Springs, Girraween and Humpty Doo. Did anyone from the Planning Commission hold discussions there? I went through their entire original plan with a PowerPoint presentation from top to bottom and did not talk about the politics. I only explained what the Planning Commission would do.
I then received the new version from the Planning Commission, and I issued this map. It is hard to see from there, minister, but the zones are all there. You said a bloke had told you I had said Commonwealth land is rural. In regard to Holtze Howard Springs, I said we should have two district centres, one near the hospital and one near the prison, because eventually a road will go through to Gunn Point, so that would be a good place.
I said all other land, which I covered in brown – it took me a long time to work out how to do that in Publisher; there are things on the computer I struggle with. I overlayed the zones in brown and said they could be developed into 1 ha or 2 ha blocks. The ‘CA’, for Commonwealth, is still under there. It shows the existing zone was there. They may have misinterpreted, but I try to be as fair as possible when people come to see me.
I am not against development. I am passionate about rural development because I see it as an important part of the makeup of our social fabric in the area. If you destroy it, you destroy something special. It is not only for me. I am 64. Blimey, I will not be riding a horse, etcetera! There are people who want the chance to enjoy that lifestyle.
In your summation you said you had costed a block of land at $400 000. I have heard that statement before. The problem with sitting here debating something is I have no chance to argue what that was based on. Land from a private developer at Girraween Lagoon is selling at $412 000 to $432 000 for a 1 ha block – top price. If the private developer is selling land at $413 000, how is it costing the Northern Territory government, for its own land, $400 000? The only thing I can think of is added costs a developer would not add in, for instance, the road to Gunn Point. Have they added that cost?
What size water pipe were they putting in? This is the argument we had with Power and Water. It wanted a water pipe that would be big enough to put out a fire in a house. The fire brigade came to a meeting I held to say, ‘We did not ask for that’. People in the rural area would not expect a water pipe to be the same as one in a suburban district.
If you took the water pipe out of that rural area, this is a rural subdivision with no kerb and guttering, no underground storm water, a basic bitumen road, power and a domestic water supply. Where does that $400 000 come from? I do not know, but it is inflated because someone has said, ‘You have to pay for some other costs’. There is a huge water main – still not connected – all the way along Howard Springs Road up to the prison. It is a big one. I have to ask the Minister for Infrastructure how long it has taken to get this water main finished. It is a big water main – pipes this big. I presume it will be used to help put water into this area, as well as the prison.
I do not know what has happened for the department to come up with this figure. If you think that figure is high, then go to 2 ha subdivision where you do not need town water, and put a bore in. All you need then is a bitumen road and power; that is it. Surely that is not as expensive as doing a subdivision in Palmerston where you must have everything under the sun. I challenge that cost.
Minister, I will not go through too much more. I could talk about the Lowther Road development. People here said, ‘You are probably not listening to everybody you represent’. That 1000 signature petition – I do not go and shove petitions in people’s faces. I know some people do. The petition sat on a table at the front of my office. When I was at the show, I sat back, and if people wanted to sign it, they could sign it. I do not force people to sign petitions, it is not my game – never have. That is 1000 people who signed that.
I went to the Lowther Road subdivision proposal the other day, and 100 people turned up. It is not in my area, it is the member for Goyder’s area. They did not want 0.4 ha blocks. They were passionate about their rural area. So it is not just me! I am the spokesperson, I suppose, because my job is the local member. There are many people who cannot speak as I have to in public; they are a bit shy. They are passionate about retaining the rural area and not letting it be carved up into small blocks.
I thank everyone for what they had to say. I want to check here before I sign off. I know we have been going a long time. I have pretty well covered everything. I am appreciative, minister, that if I ask you, I can have a chat with you. I appreciate that the member for Araluen today said she is happy to make sure I am included in discussions about the hospital.
Politics, to me, is an annoying thing because it puts you on the ‘other’ side, when I do not want it. I do not care about this side or that side, I want to ensure what we do in the future is good for the people who live in the Northern Territory. I will pass on, and people might say, ‘Yes, the place will be cut up’, but even if it is cut up I want it to be done properly. I will give you an example. It may be chopped up.
One of the things I am passionate about – I know I am running out of time – is I have always believed our creeks, lagoons and rivers should be removed from all the subdivisions. I have seen what happened down south where they had to be repaired and revegetated. We have the opportunity to do that first in our developments here and protect them. I have always said it because one day when I am well and truly dead and gone, it could be a suburb. But what we will have done is made sure our watercourses, precious lagoons and wetlands have been protected, and we do not have to spend money on them as they do down south. You only have to look at the Torrens River in Adelaide in South Australia to see how much is spent.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I appreciate everyone’s comments today. I hope we can move forward in a conciliatory way and perhaps find some compromise where there are differences.
The Assembly divided:
Continued from 16 October 2013.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Health): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I defend the amazing work that has been undertaken by this Country Liberals government over the last two years ...
Members interjecting.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Despite the whingeing and carry on from the opposition, we have truly kicked goals in so many areas. Right across government we have made wide-sweeping reforms – not superficial reforms, but wide-sweeping and deep reforms.
I would like to share with you some of the reforms I have been undertaking in my capacity as Minister for Health, Minister for Disability Services and Minister for Alcohol Rehabilitation. Our work has basically fallen into three areas: investment, reform and innovation in health services within the Northern Territory. We have seen improved access, and we will continue to see progress in Darwin, Palmerston, Katherine, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs and across our vast Territory, including 35 remote health clinics across 41 Central Australian communities and 26 remote health clinics in the Top End.
This year we delivered a Health budget that contained the largest Territory government investment in the health sector in the history of the Northern Territory – $1.352bn – which includes an increase of $36.8m in Northern Territory government funding compared with 2013-14.
One of the greatest achievements over the last two years has been the roll-out of alcohol mandatory treatment, a first for Australia, unprecedented in its boldness and courage in tackling chronic alcohol abuse in the Northern Territory. In just over 12 months, since the Country Liberals introduced this Australian-first program, more than 400 people have already been referred for alcohol mandatory treatment; that is 400 people who have had a chance to reform their lives free of the scourge of alcohol, and have had the opportunity to become real contributors to their lives, their families and the Territory.
In Alice Springs we have had the wonderful cooperation of CAAAPU, the Central Australian Aboriginal Alcohol Rehabilitation Programs Unit. The Chair of CAAAPU, Eileen Hoosan, said the facility is helping to turn the tide of damage caused by alcohol abuse to individuals, families and the Territory community. Simply, the CAAAPU alcohol mandatory treatment service is saving and changing lives for the better. CAAAPU is a place of health, hope and healing. We are so proud to have forged this very strong relationship with CAAAPU. It is working tirelessly to service the 20 beds it currently has, providing alcohol mandatory treatment, and now we are working on extending its service by another 16 beds and setting up an eight-bed assessment facility on its site at Ragonesi Road in Alice Springs.
In relation to the impact alcohol mandatory treatment has had on the community, we have seen alcohol-related admissions to the emergency department of the Alice Springs Hospital reduce markedly, thanks to alcohol mandatory treatment and other alcohol reduction initiatives. The proportion of all alcohol-related emergency presentations who go on to be admitted has dropped from as high as 37% under Labor’s watch in 2009, down to less than 10% in April this year. These are staggering figures. For the opposition to crow about how unsuccessful we are and claim that we are failing is a joke – pure and simple political rhetoric which is not resonating.
In Darwin we have set up an alcohol treatment program which we are soon to move to the prison at Berrimah. It will bring the total number of beds to 150 by the start of 2015. We are undertaking the roll-out of alcohol mandatory treatment in Tennant Creek, which will be a 12-bed facility, and we are building a 20-bed purpose-built facility in Katherine. I look forward to making further announcements on the progression of those two new facilities as they continue to roll out.
It is a great story, people are getting off the grog through alcohol mandatory treatment. All we have heard from the opposition is criticism and negativity. All we are hearing from people on the ground is success and great stories about people trying hard to get off the grog. For some reason, the opposition members truly do not want to hear those good stories; they would sooner dwell and languish in the past they created and were unable to do anything about. They were impotent when it came to stopping the flow of grog. We heard a lot of rhetoric over 11 years about what they would do, tried to do and intended to do, but they did very little. Our statistics speak for themselves. We are getting on top of the alcohol problem across the Northern Territory.
We have heard more criticisms from the opposition over the last couple of days about the Palmerston regional hospital, something they perceive we are not doing. We are getting on with the job of building this major public project. It will be a public hospital, contrary to the fears and anxieties of the Labor opposition. It was always going to be a public hospital. They do not understand what a public private partnership is. It does not mean we are building a private hospital, it is simply about a procurement option which will enable us, if we are successful in securing a public private partnership, to build a bigger and better hospital.
It was far too creative and lateral for the former Labor government to contemplate. They had a very narrow view of what a Palmerston hospital should be and who it should service. They did not get anywhere near contemplating how to do procurement. It was all about rhetoric and empty promises.
I am very proud to say we are getting on with the job, and are making inroads into securing procurement options. We have completed the scoping study. We are looking at the intersection. Contrary to the Labor opposition’s belief, we need an access road as we cannot miraculously land with our earthmoving machinery and create an intersection without one.
It is all good, and we are on track. Announcements will be made regularly about the progress of the hospital, which will be well under construction by the end of our first term of government in August 2016.
We have other hospitals throughout the Northern Territory. We continue to spend a great deal of money on our tertiary hospital, the Royal Darwin Hospital, in development, expansion and improvement. After 11 years of Labor we were left with hospital that has come to its use-by date in so many ways. They took their eyes off the ball. They should have been planning an alternative, bigger hospital, perhaps a Palmerston regional hospital, years before they even put their mind to it. We have a hospital which is, effectively, too small. However, given we are building a new acute facility in the Palmerston regional hospital over the next couple of years, that will ultimately take pressure off the Royal Darwin Hospital.
However, we are expanding the emergency department and the operating theatre to the tune of $22.2m, and that project is 60% complete. As I said, we continue to do much work in expanding the physical facilities at RDH, as well as the operational output in areas we can.
Our budget continues to provide funding of $4.46m to deliver on our election commitment for an additional 400 elective surgeries per year. In Central Australia we have gone above and beyond what we promised, which is fantastic news. It is incredible we have achieved that election commitment of 400 additional elective surgeries per year, and gone beyond it. Criticisms from Labor are so unfounded when it comes to how we are well and truly punching above our weight in health.
In December the Country Liberals government committed $6.5m per annum for the roll-out of enhanced cardiac services, including the establishment of a stenting service at RDH. This was a truly significant milestone for the hospital: the first time low-risk angioplasty procedures had been performed in the Northern Territory. It is fantastic news. It means people do not have to travel interstate, which removes much of the anxiety around these types of procedures and treatment for cardiac conditions.
RDH is also undergoing $22.8m in other new upgrades. This includes an $11.9m refurbishment of the paediatric ward.
I will leave hospitals and go on to the building of new remote health clinics, which includes extensive upgrades of a number of clinics across the Territory. This is a $50m program which will improve healthcare delivery for Territorians in rural and remote areas.
Workers have been on-site at Ntaria – or Hermannsburg – since September 2013 to construct the community’s brand-new $6m health centre, which is great news. Hermannsburg is a significant community in Central Australia which services a significant population. It is a large clinic. This is a town which has been doing it tough with a very old clinic for some time. I am looking forward to inspecting and hopefully opening that clinic very soon. I know the people of Ntaria are very excited.
The tender process for Papunya and Canteen Creek will begin at the end of this month. They are also getting upgrades to their clinics – also well overdue. The Papunya clinic, which I visited last year, is again an old clinic. Also tenders for the clinics at Docker River and Elliott will be released next month, with Galiwinku and Umbakumba tenders to follow in October, and Titjikala in November. There is a lot of work going on in the bush.
We are not only concentrating on Darwin. The former Labor government was Darwin-centric. It was all about Darwin and nothing existed beyond Darwin. We are a government that looks at all people across all parts of the Northern Territory, and that includes the bush.
We reviewed and reformed the PAT Scheme. We have made some amazing improvements in what people are entitled to. We made it a fairer and more robust Patient Assistance Travel Scheme for remote Territorians. We have poured another $7.5m into that. The opposition says we are failing and letting the people of the Territory down. I cannot see any evidence of that in Health.
In innovation, we have recently launched the Breast Screen NT bus at Barunga, which was a fabulous day. The member for Katherine and I travelled to Barunga. I have had some wonderful experiences since I have been a minister of the Northern Territory, but that rates very highly as one of the loveliest occasions. It was so exciting to see those women – mainly older women, because breast screening targets women between the ages of 50 and 65, I think it is – women from middle age onwards. There was a big gathering of them. This means that women living in remote communities no longer have to come into town. They do not have to come into Darwin, Katherine, Palmerston or Alice Springs. That bus will visit up to 20 remote communities on a two-yearly cycle, with women from neighbouring communities encouraged to attend. It is wonderful news for women’s health and for people living in the bush. They were extremely grateful for the first-class state-of-the-art technology in a bus painted pink with beautiful artwork by a lady in Wadeye.
Last month I opened a new mental health accommodation facility to support Territorians and their families. It was the first of its kind in the Territory, located in Darwin – a community-based rehabilitation centre. As I said, it was the first of its kind. It was a very exciting day – a small step because there is such a big demand for accommodation like this residential rehabilitation accommodation for people suffering from psychiatric illnesses. One again, it was a lovely occasion. Residents were already living there, and they were able to talk to us about their experience of living in such a comfortable well-appointed house in which they were supported and helped to get through this particularly difficult stage of their treatment outside of the acute unit.
This year the Country Liberals government also held the first dedicated conference on suicide prevention – another milestone we celebrated in Health. Two years of our government and we are kicking goals – the first of, the first of, the first of. There is a whole list of things that have never been done before in the Northern Territory, but are being done in health services under this government. Feedback from local stakeholders and the 100 experts who attended the conference said it was a very fruitful and productive suicide prevention conference, and the deliberations will help to shape the Territory’s first strategic reform of the way we approach suicide prevention in the Northern Territory.
We have also reformed health policy across our health services. This week we introduced landmark legislation to the Assembly to ban the smoking of cigarettes in cars carrying children under 16. We are the last jurisdiction in Australia to do that. Why? Because the former Labor government did not have any initiative. They were asleep at the wheel by the end of the 11 years; they were unmotivated and not doing their job the way they should have. This is an obvious reform we have been able to get through in a very short space of time. People across the Territory and Australia are applauding us for this small but significant initiative when it comes to looking after the health of children and adults. You should not smoke in cars.
Another one of our landmark reforms this year was to introduce legislation that will once again allow private midwives to practice in the Northern Territory. We were lobbied hard by a group of stakeholders and we have been able to open that up again. Once again, under Labor, privately practicing midwives could not practice, now they can. A significant change to the legislation means a large number of people are a whole lot happier with the midwifery services we are providing in the Northern Territory.
The number of nurse practitioners under Labor, throughout the Northern Territory, was three. We have launched a strategic plan. One of the first things I did when I came into my position as Minister for Health was identify that this was totally unacceptable. In all other jurisdictions across Australia you have dozens, and in some places hundreds. We are a small jurisdiction in the Northern Territory, but three is appalling. We have set a target; we will work on creating an additional 25 full-time positions for nurse practitioners in our workforce over the next couple of years. They will be working throughout the Northern Territory in all parts of health service delivery – chronic disease, diabetes, heart disease and mental health. Hopefully we will get a few of these people to work on remote communities to take the pressure off the doctors.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am running out of time, but I refute the opposition’s accusations that we are failing and in some way letting the people of the Northern Territory down. From a Health perspective, I know we are not doing that. We have been punching above our weight and working extremely hard. I also know across government the exact same is occurring: we are working extremely hard reforming, and at the end of the day we will be applauded and appreciated for our hard work.
Mr CONLAN (Central Australia): Mr Deputy Speaker, the motion is Chaos in the Territory Government – I do not have it in front of me. Is it something like that?
Let us look at an example of what a chaotic Territory government is. I am more than happy to take you through an example of a previous Territory government that was in chaos and led the Northern Territory down a very destructive and shameful path.
The previous government was voted out in 2012 by the people of the Northern Territory looking for light on the hill – we have provided it for them – after the economic failures of the previous chaotic government’s debt and deficit, tracking to $5.5bn of debt, taxing jobs.
Where were the building approvals under the previous chaotic Territory government? Small business confidence was plummeting across the Northern Territory, mostly in the regions. Retail sales were in free fall and job ads declined. Those are some of the examples of the economic failures of the previous government. It is a great example of what a government is like when it is in absolute chaos – housing failures and land release delayed.
The land release strategies of this government are above the land release strategies of the previous government. The minster for Lands and Planning has embarked upon some of the biggest land release strategies the Northern Territory has seen for decades. Remote Indigenous housing failures were a huge mess for this government to clean up after the previous government left the people of the Northern Territory with those huge failures.
This government campaigned very hard on the cost of living left to Territorians by the previous, chaotic Labor government – housing costs skyrocketed and rotted. Labor’s stamp duty bonanza was absolutely unbelievable. The population exodus we saw under the 11 years of the previous government saw people leaving the Territory in droves.
Infrastructure was going backwards under the previous government. The current Giles Country Liberals government, led by the member for Sanderson, the Minister for Infrastructure, is embarking on some of the biggest remote and regional infrastructure programs the Northern Territory has ever seen.
We have seen education failures and are all well aware of the state of education in the Northern Territory with literacy and numeracy issues, school enrolments and attendance. Minister for Education, where did the previous government leave us with regard to school enrolments and school attendances? In a pretty poor state. Where did they leave us with literacy and numeracy? In a very poor state.
The Health minister has just outlined in her 20 minutes what this government has done to address the failures of the previous government, most notably the growing hospital waiting list. As I said in a speech earlier today, the previous government left the Northern Territory with some of the worst hospital waiting lists in the country. In some cases we were the worst. We used to tussle a bit with Tasmania. Tasmania would sometimes be the worst, then it was the Northern Territory’s turn. More often than not, the Northern Territory came out on the bottom of the hospital waiting lists throughout the whole country, with focus on elective surgery waiting lists.
There was health roulette in the emergency department. We saw a couple of bungling Health ministers at the time. The previous member for Johnston was stripped of his portfolio of Health after lurching from one crisis to another. Then we had the man who is currently sitting in the departure lounge preside over some the worst health outcomes in the Northern Territory.
Child protection failure was rife in the Northern Territory. Law and order was their worst legacy. Nowhere, apart from law and order, did the previous government fail more than in child protection. That was the government which saw a couple of reviews – one being the Little Children are Sacred report – and presided over the intervention, or the emergency response into child abuse in remote Aboriginal communities. Let us not forget that was under the previous Labor government. It cost them their best Chief Minister, to be perfectly frank, and the Northern Territory an incredible amount of bark. Child protection was the tsunami of harm and need in remote Aboriginal communities under the previous government.
The Territory lifestyle suffered dramatically with regard to law and order issues across the Northern Territory. I am well aware of what was going on in Alice Springs and Tennant Creek. Darwin and Katherine also suffered enormously under the previous government. Law and order was spiralling out of control. If child protection was not so abhorrent and serious, you could say law and order was their greatest ever failure. Because you put children in harm’s way, then obviously child protection was.
Law and order was a major problem for the previous government. It was paralysed and had no idea how to deal with it or address issues relating to law and order, particularly in remote parts of the Northern Territory. Our rehabilitation programs and recidivism failed under the previous government, and sentences failed to match the expectations of the community.
They talk about ministerial reshuffles and are very quick to point the finger at the current Giles Country Liberal government, but there were 141 ministerial appointments under the previous government, in the long decade of governance failure under Labor.
You cannot go past the culture of cover-up. That was one of the hallmarks of the previous government, and something they did extraordinarily well. Labor is good at covering things up, doing dodgy deals with unions and racking up debt. Those are three things they excel at. We have seen it firsthand. They excelled in those three areas during their decade in government – the long 10 years Territorians suffered under the previous government.
Let us look at some of the areas of this government to counter that. Those were the failures of the previous government, so let us look what has happened in two very short years under the Country Liberals government.
Under my portfolios, let us look at tourism. We have reconstituted the Tourism Commission. We did not turn our back on the regions, unlike the previous chaotic government; we have empowered the regions by placing Tourism NT’s headquarters in Alice Springs, much to the opposition of the Labor Party. They did not like the idea; they thought the sky would fall in and could not grapple with the idea the regions were to have some clout. Against all of the consternation regarding the relocation of Tourism NT, we have done it. It has been a huge success and has been well received broadly across the tourism industry.
There is $16m of additional funding into our marketing budget; we have doubled our international marketing budget, compared to the previous government. The previous minister for Tourism presided over what is, essentially, half our marketing budget today. We have injected an additional $16m in the last two years into marketing the Northern Territory as a preferred holiday destination above all others, both internationally and domestically.
You could break that down into about $13m for domestic marketing and about $17m for international; it might be the other way around, so it is nearly half and half. There is a bit more leaning towards international at this stage. We have just realigned some of those priorities. Nevertheless, there is a total budget of $30m to market the Northern Territory. It is more than the previous Labor government ever put towards marketing the NT. No wonder tourism was in such a decline and a perilous state under the previous government.
We have refreshed the Do the NT campaign. It is now about what you can do. The Northern Territory was always seen as a place where you cannot climb, walk, touch or swim. We need to market the Northern Territory as a place where you can actually do things. It is a place where you can do great things and have great adventures. That is how we market the Northern Territory.
We have put $500 000 into the tourism infrastructure program, a wonderful initiative by the Giles Country Liberal government. That is $500 000 going to operators across the Northern Territory to improve their tourism infrastructure business.
The list goes on. In Sport and Recreation, we have a sporting festivals bonanza. Never before has there been such a bonanza of sporting entertainment in the Northern Territory – the Eels, the Demons, the Reds and cricket. It does not end, with the Mitchell Street Mile coming up on 21 September. It is growing in popularity, and we are already attracting world-class runners to the Mitchell Street Mile. It will be a huge event for the Darwin CBD.
By 30 June 2015, the Sport Voucher Scheme will see an additional $12m injected into grassroots sporting organisations. There was $5m last year, and now there will be $12m going directly into grassroots sport. That is an incredible program and those sporting organisations are reaping the benefits of that. In many sports, they are seeing record numbers and registrations. There has also been a 50% increase into peak sporting bodies, a commitment we made on coming into government in 2012. It is a commitment we will continue – as we did in 2013 – to meet in 2014-15.
Having the sports awards in Katherine was something we did. We decided to take the sports awards to the regions. Blow me down, why not? It was a huge success in Katherine. I know some members opposite were there. I am sure they enjoyed the night and they will vouch it was a terrific evening. What is important is we recognise the regions. It is about trying to take key events out of the capital city and spread the love and these events across the Territory. We have done that in Katherine this year. Obviously, because the size of the cultural centre could only take 250, we squeezed them in, and we had a flying night. It was a terrific evening.
Sport and Recreation has never been in better shape. We are having a red hot crack at this, and are starting to pull off a few wins. A traditional event, the Masters Game, is coming up in a couple of months’ time, and we are determined to make this the best games ever. Franz Samaranch used to say it was the best games ever, and we have a good chance of pulling that off as well …
A member: It was Juan.
Mr CONLAN: Yes, Juan.
We have talked a lot about housing. That has been raised a couple of times over the previous few days in these sittings. There will be 2000 new homes by 2016 under the Real Housing for Growth program. We are well ahead of our target. In year one, 200; year two, 400; year three, 600; year four, 800 – overall 2000 new homes. We are already halfway there. We are already, in fact, over halfway. We will deliver more than 2000 affordable homes. They will be on the market for Territorians to get into their very first home by 2016.
Already, Territorians have the option with our affordable housing program under Real Housing for Growth, because we have delivered more than we said we would. We will, in 2016, have delivered those 2000-plus homes which will be on the market.
That will free up those waiting lists. The previous government did nothing. They sat on their hands for 11 years and did nothing when it came to addressing public housing waiting lists. In 11 years, they built 375 homes. That is 37 houses a year you built in 11 years. We have built 1000 homes in two years already. We will deliver 2000 onto the market by 2016. That will go a long way to freeing up waiting lists. It is pretty clear it will go a long way to addressing waitlists, because you move people and provide them with a leg up, essentially. You provide people with an opportunity to get out of public housing and into the rental market …
Mr Giles: The member for Wanguri used to be a housing adviser who did nothing about it.
Mr CONLAN: She was also the Housing shadow, I have to say, and she was not very forthcoming with too many questions in the House about housing. It is again a reluctant recognition of the great work the Country Liberals government is doing in the housing space.
We are actively addressing the waitlist. The waitlists have always been a problem in the Northern Territory. As the need grows, there will always be an issue with providing quick access to public housing. The Real Housing for Growth program will go a long way to getting people out of public housing and into the rental market which, in turn, will free up more of those homes for public housing tenants.
Tenancy housing maintenance contracts are more efficient and have quicker response times. It has been proven. We have already shown it works with our new tenancy maintenance contract regime across the Northern Territory. It means people are getting their taps, doors, sinks, toilets and bathrooms fixed. You name it, they are getting it fixed, not only more cheaply but more quickly, and they are getting it fixed by Indigenous people working on their own communities. That is what they are doing. In fact, of all the housing maintenance contractors …
Mr VOWLES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Can we check if that clock is right, because we are a bit over this. He is just rambling. He seems to be …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did not like that. That I find a bit derogatory.
Mr VOWLES: I am just asking if the time is right because I know we have some time issues.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Johnston, can you leave for an hour, please?
Mr VOWLES: Why?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: You referring to me in that way, and saying ‘I am a bit over it’ …
Mr VOWLES: Asking if the clock is right?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. Do not push it! And no comments on the way out either, thank you.
Mr CONLAN: Mr Deputy Speaker, with the tenancy maintenance housing contractors not only is the work being done at a more efficient rate, but Aboriginal people on their communities are undertaking this work. Of all the housing maintenance contract workers, 72% of them are Indigenous workers on their own homelands. It is a huge success and we are seeing it ...
Ms Walker: No it is not. It is not.
Mr CONLAN: It is a fantastic success, but once again the member for Nhulunbuy does not recognise success. She is not interested in great news. She hates Housing gardening competitions, for crying out loud, why would she like anything groundbreaking? She does not, because she does not like herself very much, so there is no chance she will ever like anything like this.
The Indigenous Home Ownership Program is a policy this government launched on 1 July …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, it is now 9 pm. We will revert back to General Business.
Debate suspended.
TABLED PAPER
Legislative Assembly Fuel Transaction
Report – April to June 2014
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table a Legislative Assembly fuel transaction report for April to June 2014.
Mrs FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, I table the Public Accounts Committee’s Annual Report 2013-14.
This annual report gives an overview of the committee’s work over the last financial year. The main focus of that work was its inquiry into the management of ICT projects by government agencies. That inquiry arose out of the committee’s examination of the Auditor-General’s reports, which included audits of three ICT projects that raised significant concerns for the committee, the foremost of these being the failed asset management project.
The size of the losses incurred by the Territory from this project required close examination. The committee made a range of recommendations that should help agencies get better outcomes from their ICT projects in future, resulting in better services for Territorians.
The year also saw a significant change in the functions of the committee, with the amendment of standing orders so the committee can examine any matter within the executive authority of ministers of the Territory.
The committee’s first use of this new function was to examine the bills then before the Assembly for the structural separation of the Power and Water Corporation. This enabled the committee to receive and publish submissions from interested persons and hold public hearings where proponents of the legislation where able to explain its operation and address members’ questions. Interested groups and experts also explained their views on the bills.
While the committee did not come to a consensus on the merits of the bills, the inquiry process was able to give a good public airing and examination of the key issues, and inform the Assembly’s debate of the bills.
Throughout the year the committee continued to examine the Auditor-General’s reports and to discuss issues arising from these reports with the Auditor-General, and, when necessary, the relevant agency Chief Executive. As the main issues arising from this process were included in the committee’s report on the management of ICT projects, the committee did not produce a separate report on the examination of the Auditor-General’s reports.
On behalf of the committee I thank all those who have assisted the work of the committee over the last 12 months, particularly agency Chief Executives who continue to be very responsive to the committee’s requests, and others who have made submissions to or appeared before the committee.
As noted in the report, the committee is also indebted to Frank McGuiness, the Auditor-General, for his ongoing support. I also thank the members of the committee for another year of working cooperatively towards improved financial accountability and management in the Territory’s public sector.
Mrs FINOCCHIARO: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
Mrs FINOCCHIARO: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the report be noted and seek to continue my remarks at a later time.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
I inform the House that the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse will hold a public hearing in Darwin in the week beginning Monday 22 September. The hearing will focus on events that took place in the Retta Dixon Home in Darwin between 1946 and 1980.
The Retta Dixon Home was established by the Aborigines Inland Mission in 1946, with financial support from the Commonwealth government. The purpose of the Darwin sitting is to hear the experiences of men and women who were sexually abused as children at the Retta Dixon Home.
We welcome this inquiry, and the Northern Territory government will cooperate to provide any information requested.
The events that took place in the Retta Dixon Home represent a sad chapter of Australia’s past, and this Royal Commission will investigate the how and why, so we can move forward with more confidence in the future. It will shed new light on the activities in the Retta Dixon Home in those early years after World War II and consider how much childcare has changed since.
Specifically, the commission will investigate the response of the Australian Indigenous Ministries, formerly known as the Aborigines Inland Mission, to allegations of child sexual abuse against workers who were employed at the Retta Dixon Home.
It will look into the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory government’s responses to those allegations. The Royal Commission will consider the response of the Northern Territory Police Force and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in 1975 and 2002 to allegations raised by residents of the Retta Dixon Home against Donald Henderson. It will inquire into the current laws, policies and procedures governing children in out-of-home care in the Northern Territory, and the options for redress for people who were the victims of child sexual abuse while resident at the Retta Dixon Home.
Discussing child sexual abuse can be difficult. This is especially true for survivors, their families and professional staff supporting them. For many, recalling the events of the past can bring back painful memories, particularly for those telling their story for the first time. The Royal Commission is offering to refer survivors of child sexual abuse to counsellors or special support groups to assist. The Northern Territory government is offering a professional, confidential counselling service free of charge to all government employees and their immediate family members.
The Retta Dixon Home was established at the Bagot Road Aboriginal Reserve in 1946 by the Aborigines Inland Mission to care for children returning to Darwin after being evacuated in World War II. It became a boarding home for Aboriginal children and mothers, run in conjunction with a hostel for young Aboriginal women. A review of the Retta Dixon Home in 1950 reported the average yearly number of children at the home was 70, and the average number of women receiving prenatal and after care was eight. Children stayed at the home until they were 18 years of age.
It was named by the Australian Human Rights Commission as an institution where children of the Stolen Generations were placed. It moved to cottage-style accommodation on the reserve in 1962 and was closed in 1982.
Beyond that, I do not intend to go into any further detail about the Retta Dixon home or the investigation. The Royal Commission is one of the most powerful legal tools in this country and it should be allowed to run its course. It is above politics.
As a community, we should not fear the truth, we should embrace it. We must learn from the mistakes of the past and embrace the future, better informed and better armed to ensure everyone is treated with the respect they deserve.
I urge every Territorian to be understanding of the difficulties many people will face giving evidence to the Royal Commission and to show them respect. This investigation will be hard on the victims, their families, the investigators, witnesses and the community as a whole. They all deserve our support.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this Royal Commission has the full support of this government. I hope this inquiry brings some closure to the victims and their families.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I place on the Parliamentary Record a summary compilation of Tennant Creek and Barkly community events that have taken place since the last time I attended the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly.
I quote from the opening address of the sensational Tennant Creek and Barkly Golden Heart Awards:
The Borroloola Show was on 27 June 2014. I remember the first gazetted show. It is unfortunate I do not get around as I would like to; it is such a big electorate and there are so many demands on time and space. Good on you, Borroloola. Continue to celebrate that show and the uniqueness of Borroloola, a frontier outback town which held another great show on 27 June 2014.
The ABC races at Brunette Downs: grass-fed racing at Brunette Downs has enjoyed 104 years of unbroken tradition, now encompassing camp drafting and rodeo into a well-attended annual ABC amateur race meeting.
The official launch of the Barkly National Disability Insurance Scheme Trial on 1 July 2014: the Tennant Creek and Barkly NDIS trial represents the first trial site in the Northern Territory, and the first trialling of a roll-out in a remote area. Trial sites play an important part in shaping the future success for the national scheme, with the Barkly community featuring front and centre in advising the national research for regional and remote areas.
Barkly Regional Council Territory Day celebrations on 1 July 2014: once again, there were markets, a jumping castle, live entertainment, fireworks and a great gig for the community to celebrate Territory Day in Tennant Creek and the Barkly.
The 2014 Tennant Creek NAIDOC Week from 6 to 10 July had an incredible theme of Serving Country – Centenary and Beyond. The program was great once again. Congratulations to the committee. There was football for men and women, as well as the NAIDOC march, which I love. There was a family fun day and the elders’ day brunch is sensational if you want to hear some ridgy-didge history. Of course, there was the NAIDOC ball to conclude the week.
The Tennant Creek Show on Friday 11 July 2014: it was great to see the cattle back. The season was a good one. There were great exhibitions from the locals and the dog show has become quite famous, pulling people from all over the Territory. There were also the V8 utes and sideshow alley.
The Australian Army was welcomed at Wutunugurra by the Wutunugurra and Canteen Creek communities on 29 June 2014. The 6th Engineer Support Regiment, working in remote communities as part of this year’s Army Aboriginal Community Assistance Program (AACAP), is at Epenarra, Wutunugurra and Canteen Creek communities, and doing a fantastic job. I will be speaking more about that later.
The NT Legislative Assembly Inquiry into FASD in Tennant Creek: on 30 July we had the public forum, with a public hearing on 31 July. Thanks, Tennant Creek, it was a great turnout. You advised the committee, and you represented Tennant Creek and the Barkly with an exemplary turnout and advice for what is a very important inquiry.
I will now read a story from the Tennant Creek & District Times newspaper from 27 June 2014:
Mrs FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, this evening I pay tribute to my great aunt, or Zia Giovanna Finocchiaro. I intend to read into history the eulogy given by my cousin, Ross, son of Zia Giovanna, at her funeral.
Zia Giovanna was born into this life on 12 February 1934 in Torre Faro in the Italian Province of Messina. She spent her final days surrounded by a vigil of love and prayer. Giovanna left this world in peace and entered eternal life on 1 August 2014 in Darwin.
On 11 August 2014, our family and friends gathered at St Mary’s Cathedral to celebrate the life of Zia Giovanna and mourn for our great loss. It was a beautiful service and I know, speaking with my other zii after the burial, that Zia Giovanna would have been so proud of her sons, Terry and Ross, for such a touching farewell.
Zia Giovanna is survived by her husband, Pietro; sons Ross and Terry; daughters-in-law Angela and Lisa; and grandchildren, Jordan, Ryan, Messina, Ethan and Santo.
I will now read the eulogy into Hansard:
May she rest in peace.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, on 18 March 2014 I asked a question in parliament of the Minister for Infrastructure. It said:
It is my understanding that the department answered and said there were no issues and they had investigated the matter.
Mr Halkitis came back to me with a statutory declaration from another person named Peter Kritikos, who is a carpenter. I will not use everybody’s name here, but I will read this out as I promised Michael I would raise it in parliament. Peter said:
A company:
The company’s:
It is signed Peter Kritikos, and it has the signature of Gabriel Patricia Chesher, Commissioner of Oaths.
I raised that for the Minister for Infrastructure. I understand it was investigated, but if another person comes along with the same story – I have heard there were two other people also willing to sign a statutory declaration as they believed the work practices that occurred were not satisfactory, and that asbestos cleaned from these buildings was dumped at the Milingimbi rubbish dump. It perhaps needs another investigation.
I do not think people would be writing a stat dec, knowing I would raise this in parliament, if they did not have a fair case regarding what happened. I will be asking the minister to kindly revisit this issue. Perhaps he could contact Mr Halkitis and Peter Kritikos and talk to them to find out what their concerns are.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Michael has been contacting me on and off for the last few months. I think he even went to the Ombudsman. I am not sure what the results of that hearing were. Regardless, if another person is willing to sign a stat dec stating concerns about asbestos at Milingimbi, the minister should have another look.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, there has been much adverse critical comment and very public discussion about the appointment of Denis Burke as Chair of the Development Consent Authority by the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment, Peter Chandler.
Last week during debate the minister attempted to justify his appointment of yet another CLP ‘old boy’ to a plum, well-paid and influential position. He said:
It is a pity the minister did not detail what those five to eight ideas or terms of reference – as he called them – were. It would be fascinating, I am sure. However, in the absence of anything substantial from the minister, and given this government’s track record, here are a few likely ideas he may have used.
1. Complete and arrogant disregard for the weight of public opinion, particularly if it is contrary to the CLP’s own agenda.
Such was the feeling of Territorians against Denis Burke that the CLP suffered an 11% swing against them and dwindled to just four seats in this Assembly. Denis Burke suffered the humiliation of losing his own seat of Brennan, with a swing of over 20%. That is something for you to emulate, current member for Brennan.
Incidentally, maybe you should have done a reference check with your colleague, the member for Port Darwin, John Elferink – at that time the member for Macdonnell – who publicly labelled Mr Burke as ‘arrogant’ in 2003.
2. Contempt for widely-acknowledged conventions and processes of good government.
In government Denis Burke vehemently opposed freedom of information legislation, so expect plenty of secretive behaviour in and around the DCA, not to mention an entire lack of consultation. That is exactly what the CLP government wants.
Denis Burke also probably gets a giant tick from our current Chief Minister for accusing the NT judiciary of being corrupt and, as Attorney-General, being found guilty of contempt of court. That is certainly a great recommendation and ticks yet another box.
3. A demonstrated ability to have massive conflicts of interest and not bat an eyelid.
We know from the federal register of lobbyists’ that Denis Burke was, and maybe still is, a lobbyist for a large development company, the main proponents of the Nightcliff island development opposed by so many in our community. Can the minister tell us whether Denis Burke is still a lobbyist and whether he is also a political donor to the CLP?
Try this for No 4:
4. A strong belief and commitment to massively unpopular CLP planning goals and ideas.
As far as the CLP is concerned, outdated and unpopular planning proposals must be preserved and implemented at all costs. Public opposition to them must be disregarded altogether. Damming the Elizabeth River is a prime example. It was alive, in one form or another, in Denis Burke’s time in government, and it has been resurrected by this CLP government in the face of overwhelming public opposition. No doubt it will continue to be supported by Denis Burke. Another important box ticked by the minister.
How is this for a possible No 5?
5. A strong team player in a board environment and a demonstrated background in planning.
Minister, is it true that Denis Burke was summarily sacked by his board and escorted to the door after he had cleared his desk? Can you inform parliament of his track record in planning, please, minister for Lands and Planning?
No 6 lastly, and possibly the most important box to tick here:
6. Shoring up your own position.
Minister for Education, you are failing spectacularly in all of your portfolio areas. You have slashed teaching and support positions. You do not even appear to know the extent of these cuts. You say 35 positions but your department’s own figures say 125 teaching positions have been lost. You have the reputation as a weak, incompetent Education minister who will not stand up in Cabinet for Education. Education outcomes are going backwards, none more so than in our remote communities.
In Lands and Planning you are pushing projects with little or no consultation: Nightcliff island, Glyde Point, developments in the rural area, and the list goes on and on.
Your appointment of Denis Burke to the top job in the DCA is the icing on the cake of incompetency.
In the Environment portfolio you seem intent on not only ignoring advocates such as the Environment Centre but also silencing them through the shameful withdrawal of funding. It is apparent you are a weak, incompetent minister who is out of his depth and failing in all portfolio areas – destined for the chop, I say.
The most likely replacement from that side would be the member for Drysdale, who is an intelligent, professional and competent individual; someone who, unfortunately, was a minister for only a week before being shuffled to the backbench by Adam Giles when he so ruthlessly deposed Terry Mills in such a disgraceful manner.
Minister, in order to shore up your own position, could it be that you thought you could gain favour with the member for Drysdale by employing her father-in-law, Denis Burke, as Chair of the DCA? I am sure the member for Drysdale would not be party to such a Machiavellian scheme. Can we be sure of your motives, minister?
Mr Deputy Speaker, in the interest of transparency, I call on the minister to publish his five to eight ideas or terms of reference, and for him to say, in some detail, how he believes Denis Burke was, as he said, ‘a standout’ in fulfilling each of them.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
CRIMINAL PROPERTY FORFEITURE AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 91)
(Serial 91)
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
___________________
Suspension of Member
Member for Namatjira
Member for Namatjira
Madam SPEAKER: Mr Clerk, please pause. Member for Namatjira, I asked you to cease interjecting. Leave the Chamber for one hour pursuant to Standing Order 240A.
Member for Stuart, cease calling across the floor!
___________________
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.
This bill seeks to clarify the operation of the crime-used property substitution declaration sections of the Criminal Property Forfeiture Act and other matters arising from the judgment of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory in Director of Public Prosecutions v Green 2010 NTSC 16.
This bill amends the Criminal Property Forfeiture Act to ensure that crime-used property substitution declarations provisions apply regardless of whether a criminal has a legal or equitable interest in the crime-used property created through an agreement.
In order to put these clauses of the bill into context, I will briefly describe the provisions of the act relating to crime-used property and sections relating to crime-used property substitution declarations.
Section 10(3) of the Criminal Property Forfeiture Act states that the objectives of crime-used property sections of the act are to ensure:
- Crime-used or crime-derived property (real or personal) is forfeit to the Territory to deter criminal activity and prevent the unjust enrichment of persons involved in criminal activities.
Sections 11(1)(a), (b) and (c) describe the circumstances where property is crime-used.
If property falls under the definition of crime-used property, a restraining order can be made in relation to that property under Part 4 of the Criminal Property Forfeiture Act. A restraining order restricts how the property can be dealt with and enables the property to be available for forfeiture to the Crown, if the court so orders under sections 95 and 96.
Crime-used property substitution declarations: section 82(a) of the Criminal Property Forfeiture Act states that crime-used property is not available for forfeiture if the person who crime-used the property (the respondent) does not own or have effective control of the property. The principle objective of this section is to ensure innocent parties who lease or otherwise give certain rights to the property to a third party do not have their property forfeited where the third party crime-uses the property.
Where section 82 applies, section 81(2) empowers the court to declare that property of equivalent value owned or effectively controlled by the third party (the respondent) is to be substituted for the actual crime-used property if:
(a) it is more likely than not the respondent has made criminal use of the property so that the property is crime-used; and
(b) the crime-used property is not amenable to a restraining order or forfeiture under the act for the same reason in section 82.
I now move to the interpretation of the sections for the Criminal Property Forfeiture Act by the Full Court in the matter of Director of Public Prosecutions v Green. I shall refer to Mr Green in this instance as the respondent.
The respondent was convicted of a forfeiture offence involving the growing of hydroponic cannabis on a rural property leased by him. The property leased by the respondent had a freehold value of $1.5m. As the title holder was an innocent party to the criminal offending, the issue arose as to whether the respondent owned or effectively controlled the property and, if not, whether the crime-used property substitution declaration provisions could be applied.
The Director of Public Prosecutions pursued forfeiture of the property owned by the respondent, a unit worth $205 000 and land worth $105 000, under the crime-used property substitution provisions of the Criminal Property Forfeiture Act.
However, the Full Court found that the crime-used property substitution declaration sections did not apply, as the respondent had a legal or equitable interest in the crime-used property through the lease and was, therefore, an owner for the purposes of the Criminal Property Forfeiture Act.
The terms ‘owner’ and ‘property’ have broad definitions under the act, and the Full Court found that the use of these words allowed for legal and equitable interests in real or personal property of any description to confer ownership upon the party. These legal and equitable interests include leases and other agreements, meaning the agreement is crime-used, hence the value of the lease or agreement is available for forfeiture and the substitution provisions cannot be used.
The court found that the leasehold interest the respondent had in the property, valued at approximately $10 000, was crime-used and available for forfeiture.
The practical implication of this decision is that criminals can lease, or gain an interest in, property or premises for the purposes of conducting criminal enterprises, and only the property or interest that is available for forfeiture under the Criminal Property Forfeiture Act is the value of their leasehold interest or any other interest created through an agreement. This means that the crime-used property substitution declaration sections of the act cannot be utilised and are redundant when a leasehold interest, and possibly other agreements, are in place.
The interpretation is inconsistent with the aims and purposes of sections 10, 11, 81 and 82 of the Criminal Property Forfeiture Act and has created a loophole that has been, and will be, exploited if not rectified.
The Criminal Property Forfeiture Amendment Bill 2014 closes this loophole by clarifying that an interest in the property created through an agreement does not confer rights of an owner and does not preclude the Director of Public Prosecutions from using crime-used property substitution declaration sections of the act.
Clause 4 of the bill amends section 5 of the Criminal Property Forfeiture Act and inserts a definition for ‘agreement’. The clause defines an agreement to mean ‘a tenancy, lease, hire agreement or contract’. This definition is relevant for the amendments of clauses 6 and 7 of the bill.
Clause 5 of the bill amends section 81(2) of the Criminal Property Forfeiture Act, by omitting the word ‘may’ and inserting the word ‘must’. Currently, section 81(2) states that the court ‘may’ declare that a property of equivalent value be substituted if the court is satisfied of certain matters. This means the court has the discretion to make a substitution declaration, even where it is satisfied that the Director of Public Prosecutions has made out their case. The amendment ensures that where a court is satisfied of matters stated in section 81(2), it must make a substitution declaration regarding the property. It should be noted that section 81(2) only relates to a court making a declaration regarding the availability of property for substitution, and the court still maintains its discretion when ordering the forfeiture of a respondent’s property sought in substitution under sections 98 and 101 of the Criminal Property Forfeiture Act.
Clause 6 of the bill amends section 82(a). Currently, section 82(a) states that crime-used property is not available for forfeiture if the respondent does not own or have effective control of the property. When section 82(a) is applicable, the substitution provisions can be utilised. The implication of the decision in Green is that the substitution provisions are unable to be used where a criminal has a leasehold, or other interest conferred by an agreement, in the property. As the agreement or interest is crime-used, its property value is subject to forfeiture.
Clause 6 of the bill rectifies the issue by omitting section 82(a) and replacing it with a provision that:
(a) protects the rights of an innocent titleholder who entered into an agreement regarding the crime-used property, for example, a person who grants a lease; and
(b) ensures that criminals cannot use such interest created by an agreement to defeat the property substitution provisions of the Criminal Property Forfeiture Act.
The clause provides that, for section 81, crime-used property is not available for forfeiture if, at the time the property was crime-used, the respondent:
(a) had legal or equitable interest in the property through an agreement granted by another person who is an innocent party in relation to the property; or
(b) had a right of occupancy, use, or possession of the property through an agreement granted by another person who is an innocent party in relation to the property; or
(c) did not have effective control of the property.
Clause 7 of the bill clarifies what is meant by ‘property of equivalent value’. Currently, property of equivalent value is not defined, and the term can be interpreted in a number of ways, including property of the equivalent value under an agreement. Clause 7 amends section 85 of the Criminal Property Forfeiture Act and states that ‘the value of crime-used property is the freehold value of the real property or the full value of the other property, and not the value of an interest in the property under an agreement’.
Clause 8 of the bill contains a traditional provision that states that the Criminal Property Forfeiture Act, as amended by this bill, applies in relation to proceedings that are commenced after the commencement of this bill.
This bill will ensure that the aims of the crime-used and crime-used property substitution declaration sections of the Criminal Property Forfeiture Act are fully realised and will ensure criminals and criminal syndicates cannot circumvent these sections by entering into agreements regarding other people’s property they crime-use. Where a criminal enters into an agreement with an innocent party and subsequently crime-uses the property, they will be subject to the property substitution provisions of the act and property they own or effectively control, to an equivalent value of the crime-used property, will be substituted and will be available for forfeiture.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Take Two Bills Together
Take Two Bills Together
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the bills entitled Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Conferral of Jurisdiction for Amendments) (No 2) Bill 2014 (Serial 92) and the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Conferral of Jurisdiction for Native Title Matters) Bill 2014 (Serial 93):
(a) being presented and read a first time together and one motion being put in regard to, respectively, the second readings, the committee’s report stage and the third readings of the bills together
(b) being considered separately in the Committee of the Whole.
Motion agreed to.
NORTHERN TERRITORY CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
(CONFERRAL OF JURISDICTION FOR AMENDMENTS) (No 2) BILL
(Serial 92)
and
NORTHERN TERRITORY CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
(CONFERRAL OF JURISDICTION FOR NATIVE TITLE MATTERS) BILL
(Serial 93)
(CONFERRAL OF JURISDICTION FOR AMENDMENTS) (No 2) BILL
(Serial 92)
and
NORTHERN TERRITORY CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
(CONFERRAL OF JURISDICTION FOR NATIVE TITLE MATTERS) BILL
(Serial 93)
Bills presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a second time.
The Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act, which was passed on the 21 August 2014, seeks to establish in the Northern Territory a new tribunal with jurisdiction to hear and determine a broad range of matters. The act creates the tribunal, contains the membership provisions, and sets out the tribunal’s generic functions and powers. This act does not, however, confer any jurisdiction on the tribunal. Conferral of jurisdiction will be the subject of a series of separate bills.
Over the coming years, the entire Territory statute book will be reviewed and amended as necessary to reflect the existence of the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal. Ultimately, it is intended to consolidate the vast range of existing tribunals into the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal and remove as much of the administrative jurisdiction from the courts as is sensible.
I have already introduced the first of these conferral jurisdiction bills relating to my own portfolio of the Attorney-General and Justice, and these bills continue the process of jurisdictional transfers. The Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Conferral of Jurisdiction Amendments) (No 2) Bill 2014 is yet another step in providing the new Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal with its initial jurisdiction.
The bill consequentially amends legislation to abolish the Health Professional Review Tribunal and the Pastoral Land Appeal Tribunal, and transfers the jurisdictions to the new Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal. Likewise, the bill transfers the jurisdiction of the Lands, Planning and Mining Tribunal to the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
Another key feature of the bill is the transfer of all dispute resolution powers of the Commissioner of Tenancies under the Residential Tenancies Act and the Caravan Parks Act to the tribunal. This brings the Northern Territory’s residential tenancy dispute resolutions system in line with the processes that operate in most other jurisdictions.
The merit review jurisdiction of the Local Court under this act has also been removed, as the dispute resolution powers now lie with the tribunal and not a statutory officer, that is, the commissioner. In addition, the bill will also transfer all jurisdiction from the courts to the tribunal where the courts have original or review jurisdiction under the following legislation: the Energy Pipelines Act; the Pastoral Land Act; and the Petroleum Act.
I turn to the specific changes to the legislation which will result from this bill.
Building Act and Building (Resolution of Residential Building Work Disputes) Regulations: the Lands, Planning and Mining Tribunal has jurisdiction under this legislation in relation to residential building consumer projection disputes. The legislation is being consequently amended to remove reference to this tribunal and insert in its stead reference to the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
Caravan Parks Act: under the act a statutory officer, the Commissioner of Tenancies, holds dispute resolution powers for disputes arising between tenants and caravan park operators. The Local Court also holds both original and review jurisdiction to hear and determine applications made under this act. The act is being amended to transfer jurisdiction from the commissioner to the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal, and to remove the jurisdiction of the Local Court under the act.
Control of Roads Act: under the act, the Lands, Planning and Mining Tribunal is empowered to determine claims for compensation for land acquired pursuant to the act. The legislation is being consequentially amended to remove reference to this tribunal and insert in its stead reference to the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
Energy Pipelines Act: the Lands, Planning and Mining Tribunal has jurisdiction under this legislation to hear and determine disputes about compensation. The legislation is being consequentially amended to remove reference to this tribunal and insert in its stead reference to the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal. In addition, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to determine compensation payable to a licence holder whose licence is varied in the public interest by the minister. The Supreme Court also holds jurisdiction to determine applications seeking rectification of entries into the Register of Licences under the act. Both jurisdictions have been transferred to the tribunal.
Geothermal Energy Act and Geothermal Energy Regulations: the Lands, Planning and Mining Tribunal has jurisdiction under this legislation to review certain decisions of the minister. The legislation is being consequentially amended to remove reference to this tribunal and insert in its stead a reference to the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
Health Practitioner Regulation (National Uniform Legislation) Act and Health Practitioner Act: both pieces of legislation are being amended to abolish the Health Professional Review Tribunal and to transfer this tribunal’s jurisdiction to the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
Heritage Act: under the act the Lands, Planning and Mining Tribunal is empowered to review a range of decisions made pursuant to the act, and to hear and decide applications for confirmation of stop work orders. The legislation is being consequentially amended to remove reference to this tribunal and insert in its stead reference to the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
Lands Acquisition Act and Lands Acquisition Regulations: under the act the Lands, Planning and Mining Tribunal is empowered to hear and make recommendations about objections to the acquisition of land under the act by persons whose interests in the land will be divested, modified, or affected by the acquisition. The legislation is being consequentially amended to remove reference to this tribunal and insert in its stead reference to the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
Minerals Titles Act and Minerals Titles Regulations: the Lands, Planning and Mining Tribunal has jurisdiction under this legislation to hear and make recommendations about grants of mineral titles. The legislation is being consequentially amended to remove reference to this tribunal and insert in its stead reference to the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
Pastoral Lands Act and Pastoral Lands Regulations: the Lands, Planning and Mining Tribunal has jurisdiction under the act to hear and determine disputes about compensation. The tribunal can also hear and make recommendations about objections by registered native title claimants and registered native title bodies corporate to the extension or grant of a pastoral lease as it affects their rights and interests. The legislation is being consequentially amended to remove reference to this tribunal and insert in its stead reference to the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
The act is further being amended to abolish the Pastoral Land Appeal Tribunal and to transfer this tribunal’s jurisdiction to the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
The act also provides an appeal right to the Supreme Court against certain decisions of the minister subject to a number of specified limitations. The act is being amended to transfer the jurisdiction from the court to the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
Petroleum Act: the Lands, Planning and Mining Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes about compensation. The tribunal also has jurisdiction to hear and make recommendations about objections by registered native title bodies corporate to the doing of prescribed acts under the legislation that affect their rights and interests. The legislation is being consequentially amended to remove reference to this tribunal and instead insert in it reference to the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
Planning Act and Planning Regulations: the Lands, Planning and Mining Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine planning appeals from decisions of the Development Consent Authority. The legislation is being consequentially amended to remove reference to this tribunal and insert in it instead reference to the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
Residential Tenancies Act: under the act, a statutory officer, the Commissioner of Tenancies, holds dispute resolution powers for disputes arising between tenants and landlords. The Local Court also holds original and reviewed jurisdiction to hear and determine applications made under this act. The act is being amended to transfer jurisdiction from the commissioner to the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal and to remove the jurisdiction of the Local Court under the act.
I turn to the second bill, the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Conferral of Jurisdictions for Native Title Matters) Bill 2014, the second half of this cognate bill. It repeals the Lands, Planning and Mining Tribunal Act, thereby abolishing the Lands, Planning and Mining Tribunal.
Further, it preserves the consequences for land administration in the Northern Territory that flow from the Commonwealth’s Native Title Amendment Act 1998 upon the repeal of the Lands, Planning and Mining Tribunal Act.
In closing, these bills represent another step in the complex task of reviewing legislation and, where appropriate, transferring jurisdiction to the new Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
My ministerial colleagues and I look forward to presenting further bills over time to continue the process of jurisdictional transfers to this new tribunal.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the bills to honourable members, and table a copy of the requisite explanatory statements.
Debate adjourned.
LIVESTOCK AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 85)
(Serial 85)
Continued from 15 May 2014.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing the legislation to the House. I thank the minister for organising a briefing from the department and informing me to inform the opposition team about the Livestock Amendment Bill 2014. I advise the minister the opposition will support this legislation. We also thank the minister for the opportunity to learn about this legislation in an appropriate and constructive way.
The purpose of the Livestock Amendment Bill is to give power under the act to enable the collection for fees for service. At present, there is no capacity in the act to allow for the collection of fees for any services provided by the Animal Biosecurity Branch of the Biosecurity and Product Integrity Group. It is understood that other jurisdictions have similar fees for service, and fees are already being collected for plant biosecurity.
The Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries’ second reading speech was short, but it also offered the opportunity of a briefing. The Territory opposition also sought feedback from stakeholders. There was inevitability in the bush about these fees.
Animal Biosecurity officers in the department undertake important work, and biosecurity is crucial to the future of agriculture in the Northern Territory. Stock inspectors help to ensure Territory exports are disease free so we can see continued growth exports from the Territory.
Nonetheless, the decision by government to introduce fees unilaterally will put pressure on the bottom line of agricultural businesses across the Northern Territory. This year is a good example to use with, in the southern part of the Northern Territory, a marginal Wet Season and the pressure on the bottom line of producers that will be experienced.
The Territory opposition acknowledges a good initiative of the government, the waiver of the pastoral rent scheme on drought-affected properties and the extension of the time frame around applications. I am sure the pastoral community does also. It is good policy because it represented Labor policy that immediately waivered the pastoral rent scheme after the federal live export ban. We initiated that policy to help with major pressures and challenges on the industry. We can see it is being applied by the Country Liberal Party government for the pastoral sector in times of marginal seasons and drought.
Essentially, there is an opportunity where these new fees could be used in a policy waiver for the future to support drought-affected properties. We are talking about 2014 in that marginal season. With the application of these new fees in 2015, I am sure the minister, the government and the department will be watching the season closely to see how things pan out for 2015-16. The amount of the value of fees to be collected will vary with export volumes.
Estimates Committee Written Question No 175-25 indicated that plant biosecurity fees were introduced by the Biosecurity and Product Integrity Group of the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries in early 2013 for those services provided to parties for commercial reasons. Changes to the Livestock Act were required to enable similar animal biosecurity fees for service to be charged. Legislation is now passing through the House, and it is envisaged these charges will commence in early January 2015. The total biosecurity fee revenue budgeted for 2014-15 is $50 000 for plants and $30 000 for livestock as a benchmark. Although it has not been possible to start charging fees for animal biosecurity services yet, fees for plant biosecurity services have generated $62 000 as of 11 June in the 2013-14 year. There has been extensive consultation and communication with the affected industries, which is continuing.
We thank the minister for the answer to that written question. It provides further good advice and information when the opposition is communicating with team members, formulating a position and either challenging the legislation or, in this case, supporting it.
One of the discussions continually at the forefront for the Territory opposition is about the cost of living, because economic policy driven by government needs to be cognisant of cost of living. In the Developing the North strategy and growing the pastoral industry, those elements related to production costs need to be factored in. The department, at the briefing, indicated it is looking at fees of about $1 per head. Taken alone, this fee may not seem a lot, but it comes on top of other cost-of-living rises being felt in the bush. This needs to be discussed. When constituents across the Northern Territory are familiarising themselves with this legislation, $1 per head needs to be talked about. The pastoralists are needing that $1 figure per kilo. When the returns for beef, in this case, are beyond $2 per kilo, the industry is doing well. However, when those prices drop, the industry is under stress and those production costs come into play.
When we factor in new legislation for the Northern Territory industry, we must also look at other factors across the country. When we look at the federal arena, we are seeing increasing fuel costs, increasing live animal export fees and animal biosecurity fees, and there will be increases in transport costs. Then, add environmental influences regarding the seasons. These factors all contribute to real constraints to production because they affect the bottom line of profitability in the pastoral and agricultural sectors.
We agree the agenda is for growth in the industry, but we need to be aware that a combination of other charges and costs, combined with the federal government’s planned indexation of fuel excise and Territorians’ fuel bills, will continue to push up this cost-of-living issue and challenge production.
Minister, we are putting that on the table to make it very clear, and ask that you continue your work with the department to regularly look at modelling those economic impacts on the Territory, ensuring calculations which are done are made available, and the debate is raised within the Territory. Also, in your privileged position, that you liaise closely with your federal counterparts to ensure the extra fuel excise raised is allocated to Territory road transport infrastructure.
The minister would be aware that, as would most people in this House, when you talk to people in the bush, one of the topics high on the agenda is road transport infrastructure. It is important we are able to articulate to the constituency that these rising costs, under a federal Liberal Coalition and the Country Liberal Party in the Northern Territory, will have a benefit for their industry. With the increase in fuel excise, one of those areas will be there will be a return into road transport infrastructure. It is important, as the minister would know, that there is good communication with stakeholders about their concerns that this information is translated to their federal colleagues and counterparts in Canberra, and that Territory story needs to be told.
In relation to the effect of this legislation, it is not just about the Territory government increasing direct costs for live exporters. The federal government is increasing live animal export fees and charges by up to 60%. This is a real impost on Territory producers. When we factor in the other challenges, including environmental challenges, then this can be really serious in viability and sustainability.
The Department of Agriculture told the ABC on 27 June 2014 that cost recovery charges for live animal export certification are designed to recover the full cost the department incurs in demonstrating compliance with importing country requirements, and the administration of the Exporters Supply Chain Assurance System (ESCAS). On the ABC, the Department of Agriculture went on to say the Department of Agriculture currently spends $10.1m a year on live animal export certification and ESCAS services, but only recovers $6.5m to pay for those services. This shortfall has been a major contributor to the department’s operating deficit over the last three years, and is not sustainable.
However, the Australian Live Exporters Council labelled the live animal export fee increases bureaucratic bastardry from the federal government. That is a pretty straight shot from a rural sector. Anyone who knows people on the land knows they talk straight. These comments directly reflect the challenges which are placed on an industry which faces a plethora of challenges, both economically and environmentally.
The council’s Chief Executive, Alison Penfold, went so far as to say the price hike could put some operators out of business. That was published in the Weekly Times on 27 June 2014. These are real issues the minister, no doubt, takes up with his federal colleagues.
Visiting the Northern Australia Development Office the other day I saw the federal minister, Barnaby Joyce, exiting with an entourage of people. So he is around and is approachable. I am sure the minister will have a direct line to make Senator Joyce aware of the Territory issues and the real issues that change from year to year. It is about standing up for Territory agribusiness, and we support the minister in that task and offer the minister any help we can.
Likewise, the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries has indicated that biosecurity fees that are implemented are not based on full cost recovery, and we acknowledge that as the Territory Labor opposition. The minister is wise in accepting that advice. We will watch this legislation over time for any shortfall and the challenges around providing biosecurity services.
Taken in isolation, the proposed animal biosecurity fees may be reasonable. However, we need, on behalf of the pastoral sector, a guarantee that these fees will not increase over time to achieve a full cost recovery. We acknowledge the goodwill in this legislation from the government, and we hope to see that goodwill extend into the future. As I said in my contribution to debate on behalf of the Labor team, animal biosecurity fees could not come at a more difficult time with increasing fuel prices, federal indexation, and huge increases in federal live animal export charges. We have to be aware and be supportive of industry.
It was good that the briefing extended to a tour of Berrimah Farm facilities – well, some of the Berrimah farm facilities, as it is quite an extensive operation. I learned it is a world-class facility, with a world-class veterinary laboratory that represents northern Australia. It does the work that contributes to public health, disease investigation, and proof for freedom in disease status within industry. We met a great bunch of people there.
It was a very interesting tour looking at the banana freckle eradication team response, its headquarters, and the program. I thank the minister for the invitation. That shows a good level of bipartisan support because, as elected members of the community, it is all about learning, and being well-informed. That represented a great pragmatic show of support. It was a very interesting tour and a great learning curve. I put on the record a thank you to all the people at the Berrimah Research Farm who contributed to that visit by me, adviser Mr David Halliday and the Independent member for Nelson, who was interesting to learn from as well with his experience in the industry.
The other issue in this debate I put on the record is that it was good to have a briefing and talk with industry experts. They represent not only scientists and veterinarians, but also department officers. It was good to discuss other things as well, particularly the live export opportunities in the buffalo industry. The Chief Minister talked about that in his Developing the North Strategy and threw out numbers like 10 000 buffalo per year. It was good to bring that back from the political one-liner and talk to the experts in the industry who represent, work with and regulate the industry, about how that really works, what those constraints are and how we will grow a new live export industry within the Northern Territory.
In relation to providing biosecurity services, I had a question straight up about the new Australian Agricultural Company (AACo) export abattoir, and what that means for the department, the government and the provision of biosecurity services in disease control. It was another good opportunity to discuss these things and learn. Once again, I thank the department representatives for providing the information and the discussion, because I am interested in the parallel of the live export cattle industry and the opportunities that our northern Australian abattoir will provide in regard to boxed beef exports.
Having lived in the Barkly for a long time and having seen and visited the Tennant Creek export abattoir, I saw a working model of that in the early 1980s. I saw and understood the potential.
I had an Aboriginal assistant teacher who fainted on the kill floor. It is very unusual, in my opinion, that an Aboriginal person would faint on a kill floor of an export abattoir, because there were many kills on the station and the Aboriginal people I have grown up with are very confident hunters in the bush. I remember on Robinson River, having the only Toyota that started with a key. We were doing one kill a week.
I hold a title there, because it sent an alarm bell through the industry and through the Commonwealth inspectoral services – how did this teacher get into the abattoir, onto the kill floor, and how did this citizen faint? There was a massive exercise going on, exporting Australian beef to America at that stage.
It was all cleared up. I did not suffer any career disadvantage. The principal then had to work with the Department of Education to develop a policy around this issue, about teachers and students visiting export abattoirs. However, I digress.
To cut a long story short, I am very interested in the Australian Agricultural Company’s new initiative in northern Australia. I have watched it grow as I enter and exit this fair city by road regularly. I am interested in getting on-site too, to see it in operation – no problem. I would like to go back and look at the difference in technology and processes that have taken place over 30 years.
It was a very good opportunity to talk to the department representatives about this and understand how this will factor into the necessary biosecurity services into the future. Thank you, minister, for this good legislation; it has raised concerns. On behalf of stakeholders who have communicated with me directly back home in the Barkly, and also the Territory Labor team as we have discussed through Caucus and our various communications, the cost-of-living argument has to be taken into account not only for those good folk who live in town, but also those great people who are on the front line, pioneering industry within the Territory.
You definitely have the privileged position of being able to communicate directly with your federal Liberal National Coalition counterparts in Canberra, so we have to get the best deal for the Territory. We also have to be on the front line in biosecurity. The Berrimah Farm establishment is world-class. I learned a great deal there.
Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Territory Labor opposition, I thank the minister, and best wishes for the legislation.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I also support this bill. It is probably one of the smallest bills you will ever see, but it is an important one. I should also thank the minister for allowing us to go to Berrimah Farm. I have not been there for a little while. I reminisce when I go there, as I remember the days when it grew lots of vegetables and had field days and I would bring people in from communities to look at what was going on. Those days are definitely well gone.
It was good to go to the veterinary health section – especially when you agree to buy two brown chooks. I felt right at home. They were wrecking the garden mulch at the front, trying to find some water to drink, but, yes, I did say hello to them and they were very pleased someone was paying them some attention ...
Mr McCarthy: You did more than say hello to them.
Mr WOOD: I picked them up and scratched their backs.
It was great to go there and look at what is happening in the animal biosecurity section. As the member for Barkly said, we went to look at banana freckle.
It was interesting to see that the banana freckle headquarters – if you can call it that – is in a building called the Clem Benson Building. I knew Clem Benson when I first came to the Northern Territory as a primary industry extension officer. He was one of the best, a person full of knowledge about how to grow things in the Northern Territory, and an expert on delivering that knowledge to people on the ground. He would have travelled the Territory far and wide to just about every community, trying to help people with their gardens and encouraging the horticulture industry in the Northern Territory. It was nice to see that building named after him.
The discussion today is not so much about bananas, although, as the minister said in his second reading speech, the bill, which we know is to enable fees to be collected for services provided by the Animal Biosecurity Branch, brings it into parity with the plant biosecurity sector and other industries within the Northern Territory.
Being a person with a horticulture background, I would hate to see discrimination. This brings the agriculture sector in line with the horticultural section, which is good. We cannot emphasise biosecurity any more than we have to. Look at the bees featured in the newspaper the other day. There was a lot of discussion in this House about bringing in bees from Western Australia. That discussion was pretty fiery at times. Local bee keepers were concerned the introduction of bees from some parts of Western Australia could affect the quality of bees in the Northern Territory. You see how important it is when – according to the NT News – we are looking at the possibility of exporting bees from the Northern Territory to the United States, which has, for many years …
Mr Gunner: Based on the ABC story.
Mr WOOD: I will rephrase that. Cross out ‘NT News’ and replace with ‘the media’. I do not want to be biased. The media has said there are possibilities for our bees in the Northern Territory to be exported to the United States, which has been devastated by various diseases. If you have any idea about horticulture, you will know horticultural industries are very much dependent on bees. Pollination is what gives you the good crop you need.
Biosecurity is important. If it means the people who produce that product have to pay something towards it, that is only fair, as long as charges are fair. I heard many complaints from the nursery industry about the charges on the movement of plants, especially into Western Australia. Western Australia will not allow any plants in unless they have a big tick. To get that big tick, you have to have someone check that those plants will not take any pests and diseases into Western Australia.
The crux of this debate is about a charge. The issue that goes with that charge is how much. As the member for Barkly said, if the federal government is also whacking on a charge, if excise is making fuel more expensive, then it makes us less competitive. Whilst I understand the reasons, we have to be conscious of those charges being reasonable.
One of the other areas I noted when I was with the member for Barkly at the veterinary laboratories was the discussion about live exports, and that various countries have different requirements. It is not as though you can send your cattle to this country and say it has been checked. There will be other countries – we send meat and live animals to other places – which have specific requirements. Whether they are real or not is not the point. If you want to get your product into that particular country, then you are required to give a certification they are free from – in one of the areas we were discussing it is bluetongue, especially to China. The minister, when discussing this issue the other day when he made a statement on agriculture in the parliament, mentioned the possible live export of cattle to China.
We learned at the laboratories the other day that there are parts of the Territory from where China will not accept cattle – above a certain line which is roughly about Tennant Creek. We found that line moves up and down according to the weather conditions of that year. My understanding from what we were told is that below a certain line in the Territory there is no problem with bluetongue, but above that, because of the mites, there is a risk the cattle could carry bluetongue. Even though it is not bluetongue in the sense of causing any problems with the animal, people see it as a potential risk and do not want to have cattle from a particular area.
Of course, to enable our cattle to be exported, someone has to do all the work to find out what stations are in and what stations are out. Someone has to be paid to check those details. That is a cost. If the industry wants to export to China then we are going to have to spend money on making sure where those cattle come from is no risk to the Chinese market. Whether that is a perceived risk or a real risk is not the argument. The argument is if that is what that country wants, and you want to sell cattle there, then you need to be sure they have the right biosecurity check.
That is why this debate today is about more than just a fee; it is about developing industries in the Northern Territory which can be part of the economic growth. I will say it – we are open for business in agriculture in the Northern Territory. However, we do not want to go down a path of headlong into being open for business but not carrying out all the right controls that need to be done to ensure it is sustainable. In other words, in a hurry to look like we are developing the north, we have not done the checks and balances that make sure the markets are sustainable well into the future. That is really important when we are doing this.
That is what we saw at the laboratory. We saw people who are making sure. They are not politicians. I had a feeling – and I cannot speak for the member for Barkly – those people were professionals who were dedicated to making sure we could open up markets, and we know those markets would be sustainable into the future because we have done all the right checks and balances. We saw professional people there who knew their job. That is what impresses you at times. To get away from this strange environment we live in here and see the people on the ground who really know what they are talking about is refreshing. It is great we have those people in the Northern Territory because, without them, we do not get good biosecurity.
I know I am nearly running out of time, but we have the abattoir. I do not know how these charges necessarily fit into that facility. If they want to export, naturally there will be biosecurity checks which have to be in place. The abattoir, I imagine, will be regularly inspected. Whether it is by the Department of Primary Industry or by the Department of Health, I am not sure. Again, I imagine there will be biosecurity checks on that facility, because we need to make sure our meat is clean.
Anyone who has studied some of the problems with providing meat to Japan in years gone by, know, Endosulfan was used on cotton plantations in parts of Queensland and New South Wales. Thankfully, I do not think Endosulfan is used anymore because most people grow GM cotton. There were traces of Endosulfan in meat that went to Japan, and that killed our market for quite a while.
Again, we need to have a system where we can ensure the quality of meat, livestock, or whatever goes overseas or even to our own markets, is top quality and does not have any of these chemicals or diseases in it that could ruin this market into the future.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this forward. Maybe one day he could make a statement on biosecurity. It would be worth listening to, not just for the animal industry but for the plant industry as well.
Debate suspended.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery of the family of Albert Borella VC: Mr Rowan Borella, his son; Mrs Mary Borella, Rowan’s wife; and Mr Richard Borella, his grandson; accompanied by Dr Tom Lewis OAM. On behalf of honourable members, I welcome you to Parliament House today and to the Chamber. Welcome one and all.
Members: Hear, hear!
PETITION
Suburban Development in the
Holtze/Howard Springs Area
Suburban Development in the
Holtze/Howard Springs Area
Mr WOOD (Nelson)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition not conforming with standing orders from 1048 petitioners opposing to any suburban development in the Holtze/Howard Springs area. I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
To the Minister for Lands and Planning
We the undersigned respectfully say to you that we:
strongly oppose any suburban development in the Holtze/Howard Springs area,
oppose the name Palmerston North,
support development of Weddell as the town
support rural subdivisions of 1 ha and above in the Holtze/Howard Springs area.
LIVESTOCK AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 85)
(Serial 85)
Continued from earlier this day.
Mrs PRICE (Community Services): Madam Speaker, I contribute to debate of the Livestock Amendment Bill introduced by my colleague, the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries.
The purpose of this bill is to provide for the introduction of animal biosecurity fees. This bill brings the Northern Territory in line with other states and the principle of user contribution by introducing a user-pays system through the collection of fees for cattle tick inspections and horse spraying based on $1 per head of cattle. To date, all these services have been free and fully subsidised by the Northern Territory government.
I understand, minister, that consultation with key industry groups and the users has already occurred, and the majority was aware of the need for a user-pays system for these essential services.
These services are essential to conduct local, interstate, and international export trade, and are a legitimate business cost. More importantly, they are also required to protect our fantastic livestock industry through reducing the risk of entry or spread of significant animal diseases. The services include government certification and inspection services, and local, interstate and international export certification assurance for livestock and livestock products.
Biosecurity is critical in protecting our livestock industry, which brings $400m every year in direct benefits and $800m in indirect benefits, and, most importantly, local jobs for local people across the Territory.
Talking about jobs, member for Katherine, have you considered outsourcing these inspections? This would be an opportunity for developing local jobs for local people who could be authorised to provide those regulatory services. I can also see Aboriginal people in regional and remote areas being interested in getting involved in delivering these services.
I am speaking to this bill today because the NT livestock market is of importance to me, as a number of pastoral stations are located in my electorate of Stuart. I have in my electorate over 60 pastoral stations that run cattle, ranging from Ban Ban Springs in the north to Aileron and Muckaty Stations in the south. These stations total over 181 000 km2, nearly 50% of my electorate’s 384 000 km2. That is nearly three times the size of the state of Tasmania, three-quarters of the state of Victoria, and 75 times the size of the ACT.
Each time I visit a station I get to hear and witness amazing testimonies of our true blue bush heroes, who often live in incredibly harsh environments hundreds of kilometres from the nearest neighbour or urban area. Each of these stations has many stories to tell of their lives in the Territory. I put on record a number of their experiences about how the recent actions to suspend the live export market by the then Australian Labor government hurt them deeply.
The first is from Helen Armstrong from Glenorchy Station in the Stuart Plateau region near Katherine. Helen powerfully tells the story of the impact of the ban upon her family. I will directly quote Helen to do her story justice.
‘The live export ban came out of the blue. There was no warning, no time to prepare, and it rolled over us like a tsunami and swallowed us up. After the initial shock our thoughts turned to how we were to survive. Cattle we had agisted at Pell Station near Adelaide River went unsold, even though they had been booked to sell. There was no money coming in, but money still had to go out. We had to pay for fuel to pump water for the cattle, and for supplements to provide the cattle with the nutrients they needed to survive in the hard country.
‘We had to pay for veterinary care such as botulism vaccinations, tick control and weaning. All these things have been done for the animal welfare needs of our cattle. That meant we still had to employ people for yard work and branding, and the normal costs of running a cattle station still had to be spent, but there was no money coming in.
‘So we went to the bank and borrowed more money. We borrowed money just to run the station. We borrowed money to build more paddocks because we could not sell the cattle and they needed grass to eat. And they had to have water in those paddocks, so we borrowed money to find that too. All up, there was about $700 000 worth of unplanned borrowing due to the live export ban.
‘We were lucky in that our position before the ban was sound so we had equity to borrow on; many did not. Because our cattle are bred for the live export market, they are high-grade Brahman and medium framed. Our average mature cow is about 400 kg.
‘Some people managed to sell fat cows into eastern states’ meatworks, but the cut-off for the grid was 400 kg, so to fit the specifications they had to leave here 440 kg-plus. Our cattle were not heavy enough for this market so there was no money.
‘Then there was the abuse from the animal welfare people who wanted one thing: to shut live export down. They did not care that people in Indonesia were hungry, that workers had lost their jobs. They did not care that each feedlot supported thousands of people. They did not care that with no income, cattle here would starve, perish, die horrible lingering deaths that we would have to endure with them – every single one.
‘The psychological impacts on us were huge. We were full of despair for our future, for our cattle, for everything we had worked for, for so many years, but the animal activists did not care, they just abused us in social media, as well as the mainstream media, so we had to go to the media to defend ourselves. That was another psychological burden on top of others.
‘When we came to the end and the trade reopened we were like emotional zombies. We have still not fully recovered now.
‘Even though the trade reopened, money coming in was not enough. The numbers of cattle going out were so small it was difficult to place them and cattle were sold at an enormous discount. We sold steers for $1.45 per kilogram, which before the live export ban were worth more than $2 per kilogram. The market reopening in bigger numbers this year has been our salvation. It is still hard to place cattle because there are not enough boats to take them, but we have sold some cattle and hope to sell more. We still have the cattle unsold on Pell Station.
‘I do know that properly used original slaughter boxes used in Indonesia were humane. I have spoken with Geoffrey Brair, who trained people to operate them, and he trained them to make ropes for restraining. They mixed cement in plastic buckets with their feet and they had a facility that could slaughter cattle humanely, with no local electricity available. Unless I see a video of the time line with every second accounted for, that video is edited. I do not believe the videos filmed were normal practice. I believe the slaughtermen were encouraged to show how they would kill the animal if the head was not restrained as it was supposed to be and so on.
‘The cattle shivering, watching the ones ahead being slaughtered were symptomatic of suffering from transit tetany. ‘Whatever it takes’ is the motto of animal activists, and to them anything is permissible for their victory to destroy us. They simply do not care about the mental anguish and personal rolling trauma they inflicted on us or the thousands of families in Southeast Asia who languished without a job, food or pay whilst the Labor politicians got it wrong.
‘Even though the trade has resumed and heavier cattle are going to Vietnam in good numbers, because our Northern Territory politicians have worked so hard on resumption and developing new markets, confidence is still low. We will forever have the noose over our head that the government will just stop our trade on a whim.’
I encourage all members to watch the Cattle Scars documentary 2013-14, which can be found at www.cattlescars.com.au. The documentary tells the story of the impact of the live export shutdown from three perspectives. Produced in the Stuart Plateau region of the Northern Territory, it shows a Northern Territory Aboriginal stockman actively involved in live export and an Indonesian feedlot manager. The impacts on Helen and her family are very moving.
Another real life story from my electorate comes from Rohan and Sally Sullivan of Cave Creek Station. Luckily, and most likely because of good management, they advised they were not as badly affected by the suspension in the beginning as some of the other producers because they had already sold some cattle earlier in the year. Rohan advised that some producers were caught because they were in the process of their first sale for the year 2011 when the suspension was imposed. As it was late into the Wet Season, some producers could not get cattle out before the end of the season. Their last cattle sale had been October-November the previous year.
I am sure all members will agree it is pretty hard to keep a business going when there is no income for six months or more. The running costs do not stop. Rohan advised that the uncertainty created by the suspension was very stressful for people in that situation, with the impact made worse by the reduction – virtually halving – in permit numbers to Indonesia in the following two years.
While the Indonesian government has never said the reduction in permits was punishment for Australia suspending live exports, it does not take Einstein to figure out the Indonesians were pretty upset about the whole business. The reduction in permit numbers by the Indonesians was made worse by dry conditions in other parts of Australia, particularly Queensland, creating an oversupply of cattle on the domestic market in 2013, forcing prices down.
The year 2013 was a difficult year all round – income down, debt rising, and property values down. Cattle from northern Australia were being sent to abattoirs as far south as Victoria. The cost would be in excess $200 per head and could take several days, with spelling in between. The reduction in cattle numbers exported to Indonesia also meant shipping was disrupted and capacity was reduced. We can see it had a significant flow-on effect across whole transport and produce industries.
One more real life story from my electorate. This one involves Lauren from Elsey Station, which is in the northern part of Stuart near Mataranka. Lauren’s story is similar to the previous one. Due to cattle becoming too heavy, they had no market and no income, but their expenses still poured in – bank payments, school fees, cattle mustering, pump water, etcetera. The only way they could cover this was by increasing debt levels to cover costs, and some husbandry, which is planning for future supply not being carried out due to lack of funds.
Their cattle were worth nothing. At the same time, property values plummeted which affected their loans in assessing any equity they may have had – a double whammy. To add to the burden, as there was no confidence in the cattle market, there was no security to lend against.
The result was cascading negative effect across the local and Northern Territory economy. Cattle station owners stopped spending money, trying to preserve their precious cash reserves. This hurt local businesses in towns serving cattle stations, and they shut down to a large extent too. This in turn led to a loss of jobs across many sectors, which were so critical for regional and remote centres, and which I and this government fight for every day.
However, more importantly, one of the tangible effects was how the ban impacted the mental health of all people affected. We have all heard the stories in the media about suicides and self-harm. That increased amongst farmers during that period. Those are the long-lasting effects that linger and are burnt into their memories – the sadness that hangs over the cattle industry like a burnt red sky of a Dry Season sunset.
Lauren reports that she and her family were lucky, as they had developed another business on the side that propped up their cattle business. But, the ban did cost them a large amount of money. However, there are so many others who simply gave up and left.
While this does go over some old ground, I thought it was important those stories are told. I was not in parliament during the peak of the ban and its effects, but my constituents tell me they are still ongoing and lasting. By me airing some of these today, I hope it commences or assists in their healing process.
I, the minister and the Country Liberals government, are proud supporters of the Northern Territory’s pastoralists. We have worked hard to help restore and rebuild this iconic industry.
While no one ever likes having to pay new or increased fees, it is hard to argue against biosecurity as it is critical for the ongoing protection of our livestock industry. We need to maintain our robust system.
Madam Speaker, I support this bill and urge every member to not forget the people who had lasting damage done to them by that stupid Labor ban.
Mr BARRETT (Blain): Madam Speaker, the cattle industry is a very important part of the Northern Territory’s fabric which, with mining, has been the backbone of the Northern Territory economy since shortly after settlement. Cattle stations, at times, were larger than whole countries in Europe, and the romance and nostalgia has been a part of making the culture of the Northern Territory what it is today.
I was recently at the Barkly Beef Awards night and it brought home to me that so many young Territorians are in love with the outback. The lifestyle they lead is not possible anywhere else in the world and they love it; it is like We of the Never Never. They live in the highs and the lows of the industry, work hard in a hot, dry land, and the Territory is proud of them.
The whole business chain for export and beef production is a great driver in the Northern Territory. In my time at the wharf, I enjoyed working with the cattlemen and women who operate this industry. Sometimes we moved cattle all night and in the rain. The characters I worked with – the staff on the shipping lines, truckies, wharfies, cattle buyers and exporters – opened my eyes to this very important industry.
Biosecurity is a very important factor in the business of moving cattle. The industry needs to be protected from offshore threats. We all remember the issues mad cow disease caused in Europe in the 1990s, and frequent issues that arose around the world due to foot and mouth disease. These threats would cause irreparable damage to this industry and, as such, we need to ensure resources are available to protect it.
All those I met in this industry are great, down-to-earth people who are great Territorians. We do not want to risk this issue damaging the industry anymore; we want to protect it.
The flipside of this is we need to ensure our own quality is the highest possible, and there is maintenance of the excellent reputation of the Territory product. The biosecurity fees will go some of the way to providing resources to manage this issue from two sides. The fees will be accumulated as animals move across various tick lines as follows: movement from the Parkhurst infected cattle zone to, or through, the infected zone, control zone or free zone will undertake clean inspection and supervise treatment with Amitraz; the movement from the Parkhurst infected zone to, or through, the control zones or free zones for horses will be clean inspection and a supervised treatment with Betacol; and movement from property to property within the Parkhurst infected zone will not incur restrictions.
At the cattle tick infected zone, movement from the infected zone to or through the control zone or the free zone will incur clean inspection and supervised treatment if necessary. The costs are currently borne by the department, and I see this fee not as an imposition to the industry but a protection of it.
The future of this industry in the Northern Territory is bright; there is scope for employment in regional areas. Territorians and others who love this lifestyle are characters with names like Boof, Lizard and Brumby. For all the romance of the Territory’s connection with the bush, it is vital we do what is necessary to protect our industry from biosecurity threats. I thank the minister for the legislation he has brought forward.
No one wants to see our brand damaged or animals destroyed. The thought of many cattle being destroyed – which has happened at times mainly through drought – is terrible. It is not just the economic cost, but the cost to the people on the land.
I remember at the wharf we recaptured an escaped bull. It had been sedated heavily and, being disorientated, it had jumped into the sea over a rock wall. The animal swam back to shore but could not get out. I sat at the edge of the water that night with a soft sling around the animal’s head keeping it out of the water. I was sitting there calming the bull down and speaking to it. That night I hoped we would be able to get it out and back to the yards. It became impossible to get the animal out of the water because we could not get the telescopic handler close enough. I sat with that animal while it was destroyed, and it made me feel pretty sad. I noted the cattle cockies also felt sad; they did not want to see the animal hurt. As we dragged his dead body out of the water that night there was not much joy.
It was not about the financial loss, but the beauty of the animal. That is why many of these guys do the job, they really like working with cattle; they are beautiful animals. I like cattle, there is a beauty about them which is something else.
I remember the disruption the live cattle export ban had on the people who worked in the industry. They felt they had been painted as being somehow responsible for the issues raised in other countries. They were appalled at that and felt they had been demonised by the Labor government and were suffering for someone else’s brutality.
If we ever saw an example of legislation designed to punish those doing the right thing, and not affect those who did the wrong thing, this was it. We do not want to see this industry affected in this way, or in any other negative ways, from diseases of the future. We do not want to see our cattle destroyed.
I remember when the Panama disease happened in the banana industry. We saw many hectares of bananas destroyed. Having seen animals destroyed, it is a terrible sight. I would hate to see that happen in the future to our great cattle industry.
Madam Speaker, I see this legislation as protecting the jobs of those people who love the work, the animals and the country they live on, and I hope we will all support this bill.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, I want to say a quick few words. I thank the minister for bringing this legislation through.
Yesterday, when he was talking about mining, I said the materials in mining are a resource for all Territorians. The cattle industry is a bit different in helping the Territory move forward. It can be compared to the renewable resources of the Territory, which are not something that belongs to all of us – much of the land does, which is Crown lease. The cattle industry is a renewable resource, so it is something we need to protect and move forward.
I note we will introduce some charges in biosecurity. I also note there will not be full cost recovery, which I fully support.
I am concerned about something that happened about eight or nine years ago under the previous government. It saw the error of its ways and did not do it again. I have raised this before in this House.
It privatised soil analysis for everyone who undertook soil analysis. I saw that as a major problem. I did not mind the privatisation of it as such, but I did mind that it was information we would lose forever. A way of doing that would be for soil analysis to have been tendered out to a private company and everyone have their soil analysis done through the one person. You could collate all of the information from one place so, as as government, we could monitor those soils and see what is happening with them. We now have people sending their soil for analysis to Victoria and Perth – everywhere – and I want to see that changed. It was not the fact of having to pay, it was that it was sent to private companies.
At the moment, with water analysis, you go in and pay, which I do not have a problem with. This is bringing everything into line.
The other thing that worries me a bit is the impact of pigs. I am not too sure it says in the bill that people need to bear it in mind regarding biosecurity. I have mentioned this in the House. The member for Barkly said there is a potential industry to round up all the pigs. I got a bit upset about that. The issue with pigs is they can carry many diseases. It could be total devastation on the cattle industry unless it is completely monitored. People need to realise that, while they are not paying a fee for one specific test which government does on their behalf, all of this information is critical to government. It has to monitor what diseases feral pigs have, which is very hard to control.
A classic example was the BTEC campaign for brucellosis in buffalo. There are many buffalo around, and I am not sure of the status of that. When people look at these things and know they will be charge, they need to take everything into account. It is not that they are buying an apple, they are ensuring the tree is fertilised. When you put that in context, the amount of money people will be paying for some of this information is minimal.
Madam Speaker, I am happy to support the legislation. I raise the concern that we do not privatise this willy-nilly in the longer term. I am sure the minister will agree that is not our intention.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries): Madam Speaker, I thank all members who have contributed to the debate on this bill. I thank all members for their support, particularly my colleagues on this side of the House. I also thank the opposition, particularly the member for Barkly for his support of this bill, as well as the member for Nelson. I also acknowledge that yesterday I had a very brief discussion with the member for Namatjira, and she indicated that members of the Palmer United Party will also support this bill.
I do not intend to spend too much time on my feet. This is a small amendment to the act which provides for the capacity to charge animal biosecurity fees. Someone commented this morning that this is probably the shortest amendment in the history of the parliament, but it is important.
I will cover off on a few of the things which were touched on by those members who contributed to the debate. One of the overriding issues the members for Barkly, Nelson, and Daly raised was the cost and the pressure on the bottom line that is associated, holistically, to the cattle industry. The point made was that every little item counts towards the cost of running a beast.
I want to put this into context. We expect this fee will amount to somewhere in the vicinity of $1 per tick inspection, or thereabouts. To do a bit of crude mathematics on that, if you look at a 300 kg beast at about $2 kg live weight for it, $1 represents about 0.16% of the value of that beast, which is minuscule.
I acknowledge we have had a bit of feedback from the cattle industry over this – it was consulted. I spoke with representatives from the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association. I was asked questions about it at their branch meeting at Katherine a few months ago, when I was able to indicate to them that this would be going ahead.
My message to industry and the NTCA is that there is a little quid pro quo in all of this. We are, effectively, asking for a small fee to partially recover some of the costs associated with tick inspections. The payback is the enormous amount of work this government is doing in support of the cattle industry. The industry has not seen so much support from a government for a very long time. On this side, we are primed to assist the industry, which we recognise as an extremely important part of the economy of the Northern Territory. If you look back in history, the Northern Territory was built not on the sheep’s back but the cow’s back. We recognise the importance of the cattle industry to the Northern Territory, not only for what it has contributed in the past, but what it is contributing now and, no doubt, will contribute into the future.
The member for Daly made a good point that this is a renewable resource, whereas with mining, once you have mined a commodity it is out of the ground, you cannot put it back and mine it again. Of course, cattle and all other produce which comes out of the primary industry sector is renewable, so we are very careful to guard that.
This is part of a greater biosecurity strategy, and we take that very seriously. We see it as critical to protecting not only our cattle sector in the NT, but other parts of the primary industry sector as well. The member for Nelson mentioned bees, which are very important. Perhaps we do not discuss that often enough, and it is not given the level of importance that it is due. Bees are extremely important to the Northern Territory’s horticulture industry, but also Australia and worldwide. The Northern Territory probably has the cleanest bees in Australia – we certainly know that – and probably the world.
The member for Nelson talked about ESCAS, but also about biosecurity arrangements with other countries. He mentioned that bluetongue is an issue. Bluetongue is a problem in the export of live animals out of bluetongue-affected areas into China. There is an amount of work being done on that by the Commonwealth government. They are working very closely with the Chinese government on the health protocols that will allow for cattle to come out of northern Australia into China. That work is ongoing. It is a process they have to go through. I should say bluetongue is not the entire health protocol. There are other parts of that health protocol that will need to be sorted out and established if we are to have that trade into China.
The new Coalition Commonwealth government already has a good track record of sorting these things out. Barnaby Joyce, the federal minister, the other day announced he has been at the forefront of establishing five new destinations for live animal trade with Australia. I commend him for that. That is an outstanding effort for a government that has been in for a relatively short time. The most recent is the Cambodian live cattle trade which he announced last week. We will be working very closely with the Commonwealth and, now, with the Live Exporters Association and the NTCA here, to be able to fill orders as they come through. Once all those protocols are established, we have ESCAS up and running in Cambodia and are confident of animal welfare outcomes, we will look at how we can trade with that country. I welcome that.
There is probably a whole bunch of other issues that was discussed. It is important to cover off on the fact that the biosecurity team within the department of Primary Industries does an outstanding job. That has already been mentioned. I fully concur with the comments which have been made by the members for Barkly and Nelson in that regard.
The entire Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries has a very focused way of dealing with primary industry now. We have resourced them well. We have restructured the department. We have changed some of the direction of the department to include looking at the economics of the primary sector across the Northern Territory, helping businesses become profitable, which is important. There has been an enormous amount of work done over many years. Very important work has been done on research and development in the primary industry sector, and now we are moving to a stage where we will help the industry commercialise some of research, which is a great positive step forward.
We have, in my view, an excellent, unprecedented relationship with the key stakeholders in the cattle sector in the Northern Territory: the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association and the Northern Territory Livestock Exporters Association. They have been right across all of the changes we are making to the industry, including this one. I also acknowledge the other organisations that are a part of the live trade: Livecorp obviously; ALEC which is the Australian Livestock Exporters’ Council; Meat & Livestock Australia; and, of course, the Commonwealth government, which has done an outstanding job in a short time under the leadership and stewardship of the new minister, Barnaby Joyce.
There was some mention about abattoir charges. The abattoir will, obviously, have its own handling charges. That is not associated with any of the charges government is looking at in this regard. That will be something they sort out with their buy/sell price and is really a matter for them. There will not be an additional tick charge to go into the abattoir or anything like that, as I am advised.
Madam Speaker, I once again thank members opposite for their support. I hope I have covered off on all the things members queried as they went through their speeches. Support for this bill is certainly appreciated.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Primary Industry and Fisheries)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Aboriginal Health Workers
Back on Track Plan
Aboriginal Health Workers
Back on Track Plan
Mrs LAMBLEY (Health): Madam Speaker, I present a statement of the Country Liberal government’s plan to get the number of Aboriginal Health Practitioners back on track.
Since taking on the health portfolio in March 2013, I have visited many remote communities across the Northern Territory. Immediately I noticed something has changed, and I have not been able to rest since. No longer do you see a senior Aboriginal Health Worker running a departmental health centre as they did at Areyonga. No longer do people tell me about the baby growth program at Ti Tree which relied on Aboriginal Health Workers to show mothers how to weigh and monitor the developmental milestones of their children. No longer do you hear about senior men running sexual health business within a health centre and in men’s areas of the community.
In the late 1990s, I was working at Alice Springs Hospital as a social worker. Aboriginal Health Workers were a critical element of the Health workforce. They worked as part of the multidisciplinary team with high-level clinical skills and additional roles and responsibilities as cultural brokers and facilitators.
Remote health services in Central Australia provided a national best practice model of primary healthcare which was delivered through Aboriginal Health Workers in remote communities. Many of my colleagues talked about working alongside Aboriginal Health Workers in remote health, community health, renal services and, of course, on the wards of Alice Springs Hospital and at the Central Australian Aboriginal Congress.
I recall a senior Aboriginal Health Worker at Docker River who was also a senior man for this country. He helped his community focus on their health, including the development of an early market garden. He led community-wide activities which promoted the health of the community. He supported many other Aboriginal Health Workers to develop strong clinical skills. It was just the way health was led in Docker River.
I often wonder how many very experienced Aboriginal Health Workers no longer feel able to meet the changing requirements, and no longer work in the health centres. Are they still out there? This led me to do some research on the number of Aboriginal Health Practitioners employed in the Northern Territory, and I was alarmed by the findings. The number of Aboriginal Health Practitioners in the Department of Health has declined by 20% from 97 in 2003 to just 77 in 2013.
This trend is even more disturbing when you look at the Aboriginal Health Practitioners registration data. In 1986, there were 105 health workers registered. By 1999, this had increased to a high of 431. However, 15 years later, this trend had reversed. The number of Aboriginal Health Practitioners registered has fallen to 226 as at June 2014. This is a more than 40% drop, and I am worried that without action this profession could disappear altogether in the Northern Territory. This is of real concern. It is not just that we would lose a profession, we would lose a significant driver in improving Indigenous health. In losing Aboriginal Health Practitioners we also lose role models for children in communities, we reduce the opportunities for employment, and we reduce the capacity for communities to look after themselves. We have to do something; we need to get back on track.
A review in 2010 by the Northern Territory Department of Health and AMSANT identified this rapid decline and a number of steps to address it. However, the former Labor government did not undertake any practical steps to address it. To this day, I cannot understand why. Was it some form of misguided political correctness? They had all sorts of bureaucratic regional development plans, but something as basic as Aboriginal Health Practitioners was not worth the time. Despite this lack of attention and care by the former Labor government, there are some wonderful stories of some key health services that have made significant gains in this area.
In June, I visited Barunga to launch the Territory government’s pink bus. The bright pink bus, which is decorated with some tremendous Indigenous artwork on the side, is the first remote breast screening service in the Northern Territory. It will screen about 800 women this year and its success will rely heavily on the local health workers on the ground to encourage women to use the service. When the pink bus opened for business, former and current local health workers spent time talking with local women about the service. Without the wonderful Indigenous health practitioners at Barunga, this simply would have been a bright pink bus with visiting health specialists from Darwin, driving into town, telling you to experience a procedure that you may know nothing about – not a very encouraging atmosphere for women.
Aboriginal Health Practitioners are the best people to build local relationships and connections, and they play a significant and complex role as cultural brokers. Barunga, which is home to a Sunrise Health Service, is definitely the model of excellence when it comes to training and retaining Aboriginal Health Practitioners. The clinic has recruited and supported dozens of local health practitioners over the years. Joanne Berry, a senior Aboriginal Health Practitioner, has worked at the clinic for almost 20 years. She told me her role is challenging, but essential to encourage the community to engage with their health service.
What is behind their success at Barunga? The answer is support and valuing the role of Aboriginal Health Practitioners, one of 14 professions registered nationally by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency, known as AHPRA. Sunrise promotes the leadership roles of local Aboriginal Health Practitioners as part of the multidisciplinary health centre team. They are encouraged to keep training, and work in all areas of the clinic. The role of facilitator in getting families to engage in health business is valued, and this is the model that has sparked my interest.
People in communities, when I ask them what they want from their health service, frequently respond with the fundamental request of having Aboriginal people from their community and, in some cases, selected by their community, working in their health centre.
The Batchelor Institute offers a Certificate in Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander Primary Health Care Practice. It involves study and clinical work, and part of the Back on Track plan is to look at how we can make this training more accessible to remote Territorians who want to train as health practitioners.
On the Tiwi Islands, two Aboriginal Health Practitioners have just completed their course at the Batchelor Institute – Linda Marie Pupangamirri and Joseph Gideon Pangiraminni are two recent success stories. They are now registered Aboriginal Health Practitioners working for health clinics on the islands. They will be role models for their family and community. The Back on Track plan will ensure we hear many more success stories like theirs.
At Wadeye, a former Aboriginal Health Worker, Matthais Nemularuk, outlined that he wants people to feel comfortable to go into the health centre. To do this, he said community people must work there. To this man, having community people working in the Wadeye Health Centre is also a key step towards community control of their health centre.
I have committed to working with remote communities in both the Top End and Central Australia to transition their local health centres to community control. I have begun that journey with Maningrida and Wadeye.
I met the Thamarrurr Regional Authority Aboriginal Corporation at Wadeye and gave support to transferring the government-run health clinic to the community. Wadeye community leaders spoke about the community’s desire to lead their health service, as they did in the past when there was only one government nurse and more than 10 Aboriginal Health Workers. They talked about the importance of community people working in the health clinic and creating opportunities for local control. This includes pathways for young people to do work experience in the health centres and encourage them into study and employment. The community also feels that by managing the health clinic they will be able to coordinate all outside support services coming into Wadeye to better meet the health needs of the community.
In Maningrida, we have been talking with the Malabam Health Board about pathways to community control of their community health centre. This will involve joint planning with the health board, and is only part of our approach to encourage community control of health clinics. I believe greater levels of community control will help to engage local residents with their health service by providing a more responsive service. It will allow local people to be the ones making the decisions about their health service for the betterment of their families and community.
I am committed to helping any community that has similar ideas and aspirations about control of their health outcomes. I acknowledge that not all communities may want to have community control of their clinic, or they may want to have input into their service in different ways. It is important we talk to communities about their capabilities and goals to run an efficient and effective health service. It is part of my plan to get the NT back on track.
The Back on Track plan will initially concentrate on five communities. The first stage is to employ Aboriginal Health Practitioners in these communities, enrol community members in the training pathway, and support the attainment of qualifications that are suitable for registration as an Aboriginal Health Practitioner.
We are immediately starting with Wadeye and Papunya. The goal I have set for Wadeye is to have three Aboriginal Health Practitioners registered and employed in 12 months. The second target is to achieve an increase of 10% additional Aboriginal Health Practitioners registered or on a training pathway each year across the NT. This is an aggressive and ambitious plan, but there is no option other than to get back on track.
We have a real opportunity to match the improvements in closing the gap in the health status of Indigenous and non-Indigenous people by increasing the Aboriginal workforce. With only about 340 Aboriginal Health Practitioners registered nationally, there are not enough to meet the health needs of Aboriginal people nationwide.
If we want Aboriginal Health Practitioners to specialise in areas such as mental health and renal services, and to attract Aboriginal people to work in other areas of health such as Alcohol and Other Drugs and management, we must act now. The NT should be leading the nation on this.
I am chairing the Back on Track Action Taskforce to ensure I will have a stake in the solutions identified by those with experience in the area. This is not another talkfest, or another way for people to thump their chest to show what they are doing. Instead, I have asked people who have real experience and, to use a sporting expression, real skin in the game.
I have asked Marion Scrymgour, Chair of the Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance of the NT, to be on the task force, along with AMSANT CEO John Patterson. John and Marion have been in this area and seen its decline. I know they want to turn it around, so I look forward to getting their ideas. From Central Australia, I have asked Donna Ah Chee, the CEO of the Central Australian Aboriginal Congress, to also sit on the task force. She also has had many years’ experience.
Together we will concentrate on reaching these targets I have set. We will work closely through community leaders, health managers and current Aboriginal Health Practitioners. We need to know the communities and be able to work with them, adapting our policy needs to their practical situations to produce the results we all want.
I am committed to ensuring that representatives from the Department of Health visit communities which have been left without an Aboriginal Health Practitioner for years, to work with the community to encourage people to train as Aboriginal Health Practitioners. We need to know the barriers to successful outcomes, then we need to work to find ways through those barriers because, as far as I am concerned, the result is too important to too many people and communities.
This Territory government is not only committed to achieving these targets, but also to sharing our expertise to encourage all states to follow our lead. Getting more Aboriginal Health Practitioners into health clinics across all areas of remote Australia is an important national health issue for Indigenous people. The Northern Territory needs to lead on this. It needs to show the rest of Australia and all those international agencies that criticise us that there is a way; we are following it and it is working.
We cannot afford to let this fall by the wayside as Labor did. We cannot fail a single proportion of our population as Labor did. We cannot fail our remote areas as Labor did. If we are to see real progress in Indigenous health outcomes and economic opportunity in our remote communities, we must do this.
I am looking forward to standing in parliament next year and reporting to the Assembly that we are well and truly back on track in the Territory.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker, I thank the Minister for Health for bringing this important statement to the House. There is no doubt we see plenty of statements through this parliament under the CLP, many to pad out the lack of legislation. Sometimes I am left shaking my head at the way they waste their time. However, with this statement, I applaud the minister on bringing it to the House. It is fantastic.
However, I must get something off my chest. I am disappointed to again receive a statement at 8 am in the morning. This is not conducive to allowing for enough time to do some in-depth research, to collect your thoughts and ensure you have a well-constructed contribution to this debate. It is disappointing that the government is not allowing time for that work to happen. It is an arrogant strategy, and does not show real respect for debate in this parliament.
There are some members here who are very talented at being able to talk absolute rubbish for 20 to 30 minutes, with little research or substance to back their comments. That is a real shame. I would rather do the hard yards, do the work, and check my facts and figures to ensure we go to a greater level of depth in debate in this parliament. This is what people expect of us and we are paid to do. Our constituents expect better. I had to get that off my chest, and I will launch back into the statement.
Again, I thank the minister for bringing it forward. I look forward to seeing progress with the Back on Track Action Taskforce in helping build the Aboriginal Health Practitioner workforce in the Northern Territory. Today she has placed on the record her efforts to drive improvements in this critical area of health in the Northern Territory. I completely support her work with the Back on Track task force, as I agree we need more Aboriginal Health Practitioners, and to grow this, critically, as part of the Territory’s workforce going into the future.
In the Territory, we have a long, proud history of Aboriginal Health Workers. I will use a little prop here where we have a nice little chart going back to 1870 up to 2013, highlighting some of the work that has been done in this area, and the many key health organisations and individuals who have worked in this vital field in the Northern Territory.
Having Aboriginal Health Practitioners is essential because it all comes back to the fact that when we see a health practitioner we want to know we can trust the person we are dealing with – someone we understand and who understands us. That is why our Aboriginal Health Practitioners and Aboriginal health organisations are so vital. We need to see this area continue to grow.
In improving health outcomes for Indigenous Territorians, those who are suffering the greatest burden of disease in our community, we must also acknowledge the work on the basis of what works and what does not. I will read the summary from the Closing the gap clearinghouse. What works? A review of actions addressing the social and economic determinants of Indigenous health. Some of the effective approaches are characterised by the following:
- holistic approaches which work with Indigenous people in ways which take into account the full cultural, social, emotional and economic context of their lives, including an awareness of the ongoing legacy of trauma, grief and loss associated with colonisation
…
…
It shows how vital Aboriginal Health Practitioners really are. They work, they have proven they are essential to the Northern Territory. In my short time as shadow Health minister I have been fortunate to meet with many Aboriginal health organisations and see firsthand the work of those practitioners on the ground. There are many local people working within the community to serve their people and ensure they get access to better health services. They help build strong local connections between health services to help people have more confidence in seeking medical treatment and support, and they understand local health issues better than most.
I saw a clear example of that recently at a public hearing of the select committee on foetal alcohol spectrum disorder. One witness was a local Aboriginal Health Practitioner who had been doing the job for around 20 years in the Katherine region and had a depth of knowledge on the health of her communities, which demonstrated an insight into what was happening on the ground. She also had historical context of how things had been going. She had seen programs in communities come and go over the years. She had seen federal governments and Territory governments come and go. She had seen what worked and what did not, and what impacted health on the ground. She had answers on how to really help people in the area of FASD. It was an inspiring example of passion on the ground and what benefit there is in having career health workers in their communities delivering critical health services.
We know primary healthcare is central to addressing the high burden of chronic disease in the Northern Territory, particularly in our remote communities. It is also important to focus on health promotion and primary healthcare as an important activity to help reduce the need for emergency and acute care in our hospitals.
The recent example of the 10-year study by Dr Susan Thomas into diabetes treatment, reported by the AMA, found that every dollar spent on primary healthcare for Indigenous people with diabetes in the Northern Territory can save $13 in hospital treatment down the track. The investment up-front in primary healthcare is a no-brainer; it is a good investment. You will save money down the road and somebody will be in far better health.
Concern about primary healthcare in the Territory was an issue I raised when I had the opportunity to meet with Associate Professor Owler, President of the AMA. It was very clear the AMA view that it is always important to ensure you never drop the ball on primary healthcare, you keep the investment there and the work going, because ultimately you will save money down the road in the acute care side of health. Also, you will be adding to the quality of somebody’s life.
Ultimately, we would all agree we would rather see people not end up in hospital, full stop, especially when we see the immense pressure RDH is under with bed block. We know the government has finally agreed to open the medi-hotel for its intended purpose of supporting hospital patients in their transition to home after hospital or other medical treatment.
We welcome the minister’s support and commitment to primary healthcare and the role of Aboriginal Health Practitioners. However, we did not hear in this statement what she is doing to ensure adequate, ongoing funding to enable continued development of primary healthcare in the NT, and the development of our Indigenous workforce. For example, I still remain very sceptical of the $30m worth of cuts to primary healthcare we saw in the budget in the Territory. I hope we see that money come back in when we see the mid-year statement, as the commitment was given at estimates.
What is the government doing in relation to the Abbott government’s budget cuts to anti-smoking in health promotion work in the NT? Unbelievably, they have cut $130m over five years across Australia to anti-smoking health promotion through the Tackling Indigenous Smoking program.
This has happened despite research suggesting that 42% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Australia smoke daily, compared to 16% of non-Indigenous and, in some remote communities, smoking rates for Indigenous people can be as high as 80%. It also suggests that two-thirds of Indigenous women continue to smoke during pregnancy. Tobacco also contributes to about 80% of all lung cancers in Indigenous Australians, and around 39% of young people aged 15 to 24 are smoking daily.
Yet, we saw a cut to smoking programs that should be delivered on the ground to help address the issue and help people with their health issues. That is the work we need to do – say to the government, especially the Abbott government, those sort of cuts are just not on, particularly in the Territory. A recent report in the Sunday Territorian noted smokers are costing the NT more than $750m a year, let alone the damaging personal health outcomes. Aboriginal Health Practitioners engaged in anti-smoking campaigns must wonder about the future of their programs and their jobs following cuts to program budgets by the Abbott government.
In the NT, the hunt for $13.5m in departmental efficiencies this year, as part of then Treasurer Tollner’s budget cuts, is also hurting the health system. We have also seen this in addition to the $11m coming out of the budget this year for hospitals, as a result of Abbott’s health cuts to our hospital systems.
The Abbott government is using this year to conduct a major review of remote and Indigenous health programs. We need to know the minister and the government are working hard to influence that review and the work of that razor gang which has the dangerous capacity to undermine the important health gains that have been made in remote and Indigenous health in recent years in the NT and the Aboriginal health sector, leading the way to help close the gap in Indigenous health.
While we support the work the minister says she will do in developing our Indigenous health workforce, we also need her to be on the case, banging on the doors of her colleagues in Canberra, saying we need the continued support in the Territory of our health system, of primary healthcare and Indigenous healthcare, and to stop the cuts. The Territory is not the place to cut health funding. This is the very last place they should be cutting any funding, because we have the greatest need.
We are also pleased to see that John Patterson, Marion Scrymgour and Donna Ah Chee will be actively engaged in this task force to help build our Aboriginal health workforce. Recently, when I was in Katherine, I met with local Aboriginal community health organisations and heard about their work to develop Aboriginal Health Practitioners. People at Wurli-Wurlinjang told me how proud they were of the program and the successes they had within their workforce over the years. It was also clear that, given the emerging health issues in the region, every single one of these workers were needed to tackle the workload.
Issues they were dealing with included more presentations of cancers, given people are living longer, and important health promotion work, because prevention is better than cure. We would rather see people get in early, do the work and get those health messages right from day one.
We heard great concerns about the potential $7 GP tax the Abbott government has been looking at. Aboriginal health organisations have taken a very clear and sensible stance that they would not put that charge on to their clients, because they want to encourage people to see a GP and get help upfront. The Abbott government has decided to embark on an extremely dangerous path by discouraging people from going to the GP. It is a disgrace, and I sincerely hope we do not see that $7 GP tax introduced in this country, because it is a shame to see our health system going in that direction. People should be encouraged to go to the doctor and nip it in the bud, rather than ending up in the hospitals down the track. It is also appalling to see how it targets some of our poorest Australians and Territorians. Let us hope that does not go through.
There were also drug abuse issues, particularly regarding ice. I was horrified to hear stories about the emergence of that in the region. There was clearly a pressing need for more work to be done in the mental health space. One of the biggest issues raised with me was dealing with people’s emotional wellbeing. Mental health is one of the biggest issues in the Territory, and our Aboriginal Health Workers can do a great job in helping in that area.
The minister fully appreciates the immense health challenges in the NT. I appreciate she does not have an easy job, but that is part and parcel of being in government. She has a real opportunity to make a difference as she has her hands on the controls. I am glad to see she is actively seeking to work with this task force and make a real difference to the future of the Indigenous health workforce.
Again, I have to stress an important part of this is strong advocacy to your counterparts in Canberra, sending a very clear message that cutting health programs and support in the Northern Territory is not on. They are targeting the wrong jurisdiction in taking money from Territory hospitals, health systems and health programs. This is a place that needs the most support to tackle the horrendous issues we have in health. We need to see a strong stance and lead taken by the minister, the Treasurer and the Chief Minister towards Canberra to say it should not touch the Territory’s health money, should reinstate it, and keep supporting us because we need it. But, enough of Canberra.
This statement is not only about government and going into the argy-bargy of federal and Territory funding arrangements, etcetera, it is also about acknowledging and celebrating the roles Aboriginal Health Practitioners have had in our Territory health system for a very long time, and will do for a very long time into the future.
We sadly hear, from time to time, stories of misunderstandings, sometimes serious, affecting healthcare, particularly in strong cross-cultural settings, as often is the case in the Northern Territory, with patients, nurses and doctors often frustrated by communication issues between health professionals and patients. We all know how important it is in our own dealings with the health system that we have trust and confidence in the people we speak to when we receive healthcare. We increasingly understand the need for health providers to understand the social and environmental factors affecting their patient’s health outcomes, how they can work with the patient’s family and, where appropriate, how they can work with their community to support better health outcomes in the Territory.
These are all areas where Aboriginal Health Practitioners consistently value add and contribute to better health outcomes wherever they work. They provide often crucial insights and continuity of care at the local level, with other specialist medical practitioners and health professionals coming and going over the years. We should not forget the priceless value our Indigenous health practitioners have added to the professional development of otherwise highly-trained medical workers. These are the health workers who go out to work in the Territory. Many people who come to the Territory have not been here for a long time, and having the local health professional on the ground, putting things into context, will make a huge difference.
In this statement, the minister said Labor ran down, whether by neglect or design, our network of Indigenous health practitioners. We reject that, but we agree we need new focus and investment in recruitment, retention and professional development of a strong Indigenous health workforce, working in both primary and acute care across the Northern Territory’s healthcare system.
We would like to hear a bit more from the government and the minister about what work they are doing to develop the Indigenous health practitioners’ training and professional development packages, including remote education opportunities in our higher education institutions. We would like to hear more of Indigenous health-related vocational training and traineeships to grow and renew our workforce. We would like to hear of innovation in new health-related school-based apprenticeships in our remote communities. We want to see scholarships and financial support for local training and for current and new Indigenous health practitioners.
We would like to hear more about the plans to grow our health programs within the Territory, so we know we are building strong local Territory plans and programs to protect us in some ways from Tony Abbott’s razor gang and the approach he is taking to health in this country. We need to fight for every dollar. Unfortunately, we are not doing too well in that fight at the moment, so it is essential we have good, strong, local programs and investment to ensure when Canberra changes its mind we are protected and are still delivering the health programs we need.
We need to hear more about the Minister for Health’s new initiatives in mental health and wellbeing, with a strong focus on employment and development of an Indigenous workforce in this critical space. We also would like to find out a bit more about what is happening within housing for locally-engaged remote health workers in those communities.
Our Indigenous health workers are legends in their home communities and the health sector more generally. How many times have they helped medical practitioners get the right diagnosis? How many times have they helped save a life and made a critical early intervention in treating disease and disability? They personify the ethics and values we all want to see and promote in our health system, let alone broader community life. We acknowledge their profound personal commitment to better healthcare in the Territory.
We support the further development of Aboriginal-controlled health centres in the NT, but will be very alert to any signs that government will walk away from its accountability for health expenditure and outcomes in the Territory.
We support the minister in her endeavours, but we want to see real success in growing and developing primary healthcare in the NT. As we grow our workforce, we continue to improve access to healthcare for all Territorians. We do not want to lose important health gains in recent years. We want to ensure all Territorians, no matter where they live, have access to the healthcare and support they deserve. Our Aboriginal Health Practitioners are vital in doing this.
Madam Speaker, I hope to see some genuine success in building the numbers of our Aboriginal health workforce on the ground in the Territory. I thank the minister again for bringing this very important statement to the House.
Mr CONLAN (Central Australia): Madam Speaker, I thank the shadow minister for her support of this statement, and the Minister for Health for bringing it to the House today. It is extremely important.
I spent five years as shadow Health minister, so I am very keen to contribute to the debate. We have the previous Health minister – I am not sure what he is these days, shadow Tourism. Is he still Tourism shadow? You would not really know it, but I think he still holds the portfolio of shadow Tourism minister at least. He is still in this Chamber, but has announced his retirement. He has had a reasonable career, but I do not think Health is an area he will look back on, or will be fondly remembered for, because he presided over many of the failures the Country Liberals government is now trying to right.
I support the statement. It is about getting Aboriginal Health Practitioners back on track. Some communities, particularly in Central Australia, have been left without Aboriginal Health Practitioners for many years. It is sad for those people who could have had those jobs. Also, a very serious situation was left as a result of that void in those communities. There is a direct impact on the success of the local health clinics and, of course, the relationships those communities have with their health services. It is intrinsic, by virtue of that relationship, that we see better health outcomes.
The decline in numbers of Aboriginal health clinics is of great concern – a 20% drop in the Northern Territory NTG-run health clinics. Across the board the statement suggests the figures are even higher. We have gone from 431 registered practitioners to 226. Labor members should hang their heads in shame as a result of that. Either way, it has been left, once again, to the Country Liberals government to fix this wrong. I believe it is lucky for remote parts of the Northern Territory that this government has been elected because we have a strong commitment to the bush. Contrary to what is being run in this parliament and in the media, the government is very committed to remote and regional parts of the Northern Territory, as we are to urban parts of the Northern Territory.
Let us have a snapshot at some of the programs and completed initiatives of the Giles Country Liberals government. Palmerston hospital is progressing. You may remember this was considered a cruel farce by the previous government. A Labor Health minister, the previous member for Johnston, indicated at the 2008 election that anyone who committed to building a hospital in Palmerston – it was a ‘cruel farce’ were his words. However, this government has committed to a Palmerston hospital and it will be delivered for the people of the Northern Territory.
The Patient Assistance Travel Scheme was a real bugbear of mine for many years as shadow Health minister. An amount of $30-odd a night to travel was grossly insufficient. That scheme has been increased and subsidies for Territory families travelling interstate for medical reasons are now much better.
Cardiac surgery patients in Darwin and Alice Springs no longer need to travel interstate for CT coronary angiograms and angioplasty. It is a pretty simple operation. It was an election commitment by the Country Liberals in 2012, and I am pleased to say we have now completed that.
There is $4.6m for an additional 400 elective surgeries. Remember, the previous Health minister in the Henderson Labor government presided over some of the worst elective surgery waiting lists in the country. He was handed that baton by the previous, previous minister – one of the 141 ministerial reshuffles from the member for Johnston to the member for Casuarina – and both left a legacy in the Territory of extraordinarily long elective surgery wait times.
The Royal Darwin Hospital upgrades to the tune of around $22m and the brand new emergency department in Alice Springs to the value of $24.9m were completed under this government …
A member interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: Yes, there is no doubt about it. I know it is a touchy subject, but you did commit $9m, which fell short. If it was not for the Commonwealth government, you would have reached nowhere near it. We watched that with great interest unfold in Central Australia as the previous Chief Minister, Paul Henderson, went from one disaster to another trying to deliver an Alice Springs emergency department. If it was not for the Commonwealth government at the time, we would still be without an emergency department in Alice Springs. Nevertheless, it was signed off by this current government.
Alcohol mandatory treatment has been one of the benchmarks and great success stories of the Giles Country Liberals government. That is a small snapshot of this government’s commitment to health outcomes across the Northern Territory and, in this case in particular, through remote parts of the Territory.
Encouraging more remote Territorians to access health services is a key to improving their health outcomes. It goes hand-in-hand with providing improved housing – I heard housing mentioned somewhere in the shadow’s speech. Encouraging more people to front up to these clinics is always a challenge; it will never be easy. I do not think we will get everyone who requires a health check or if someone is feeling a bit crook to front up to some of these remote clinics . It is a challenge, has always been a challenge, and will continue to be so. We want to try to close that gap as much as possible.
Countless studies and research have shown that overcrowding in remote parts of the Northern Territory is a major reason for the spread of disease there. Overcrowding in public housing is a huge problem in the Northern Territory. It is, again, a legacy left to us by the previous government. However, in fairness it has always been an issue across the Northern Territory. We are a victim of our circumstance. Since coming into government, the Country Liberal Party has attempted – and we are still trying very hard – to fix Labor’s mess in the bush with regard to housing.
Let us look at some of the things we have done. Indigenous home ownership is a brand new policy announced by this government. With the support of the Chief Minister and the Department of Housing, we were able to develop a policy to allow Indigenous people to own their own homes. It is a fantastic initiative …
Mr Wood: The Tiwi Islands have been doing it for the last five years.
Mr CONLAN: Member for Nelson, I am not sure why you would not support it or why you do not like it, but there are 11 expressions of interest. Who knows whether all 11 people will be approved finance. I am not sure ...
Mr Wood: I am supportive of it. I am saying it was brought in by the previous government.
Mr CONLAN: Okay, I am very pleased to hear that you are supportive of it. It is a groundbreaking policy, and for the first time Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory have a real chance of owning their own home. This policy is a game changer for people living in the bush, providing them with the opportunity to purchase their own home. It is a no-brainer – the policy needed to be developed and was developed by the Giles Country Liberals government. We are very proud of that and very excited to see 11 expressions of interest thus far, only eight weeks or so into the program.
Remote housing contracts is a good one. There has been a fair bit of criticism, misinformation and scaremongering around remote housing contracts ...
Mr Wood: I am wondering whether we are talking about health workers.
Mr CONLAN: Again, the member for Nelson does not like efficiency. He does not seek a brief, or ask a question; he just sits and carps from the sidelines in the peanut gallery, which is what he has done for the last 11 years in this place. Whenever he had a chance to make a change or an opportunity to do something he never did. But he does not like remote housing contracts.
Let us look at some of the remote tenancy management housing contracts …
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I have listened to this for quite a while – digression. The subject is about Aboriginal Health Practitioners.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, if you could just keep to the topic, please.
Mr CONLAN: With respect, overcrowding in public housing is extremely relevant. In fact, it was raised by the shadow. Member for Nelson, you might be getting a bit of a touch up on the way through in my response to this statement. I suggest you take it. If you want to give it you have to take it. Nevertheless, I will leave you out of it if you do not like it.
I am talking about remote housing tenancy contracts and how these sorts of opportunities provide better health outcomes. It is not a long bow or a stretch – people who work are in a better position to manage their own health outcomes. Would you not say having a job is a healthy outcome? It provides you with greater opportunities in life. The more opportunities that present, the more capacity we have to manage better health outcomes. It is pretty clear.
Remote housing tenancy contracts have improved Indigenous employment in the bush. It goes to the very heart of it. Indigenous employment is a key factor in providing a way through some of the issues facing remote Territorians who are some of the most vulnerable. The huge amount of unemployment we see contributes directly to poor health outcomes. It is clear, and I do not need to be a rocket scientist to convince you of that; it is a no-brainer. In the bush, 72% of remote housing tenancy contractors are Indigenous. If someone wants to identify as Indigenous or not, that is a matter for them. For those who do, we have the figure of 72% Indigenous employment in the bush as a result of those remote housing tenancy contracts.
It is also worth pointing out that as a result of efficiencies we are seeing on the ground with those remote housing tenancy contracts, we are able to get taps, doors, toilets, bathrooms and bedrooms fixed at a much more cost effective price in a much speedier fashion. This, again, provides for a better living condition for those living in these remote properties. A better living condition is conducive to a better health outcome. There are a couple of areas with regard to remote housing tenancy contracts that directly improve people’s health outcomes. It is simple.
We will see a reduction in waiting lists. Overcrowding directly impacts on someone’s health. Overcrowding has been a big problem in the Northern Territory and will continue to be. Only this government has brought together some groundbreaking policy with regard to 2000 affordable homes. With the Real Housing for Growth policy we will see people transitioning from public housing into an affordable house and into the rental market. Public housing is freed up through those people transitioning out, and that reduces waiting lists and, therefore, overcrowding. It is simple.
Before I go on, I will put on the record some of the work that has been done in these remote communities with regard to housing. It is very relevant. It is not an opportunity for me to bang on about housing. I truly believe good, proper housing outcomes directly impact on good and proper health outcomes.
Look at what has been completed in the bush since August 2012. We have had new builds, rebuilds, functional upgrades and durable upgrades. In the Arafura region we had 15 new builds, 51 refurbishments and 114 durable upgrades. In the Arnhem region there have been 223 new builds, 184 rebuilds and refurbishments, and 58 durable upgrades. There is a difference between the two and we can go over that if you would like, but members probably already know. In the Namatjira electorate we have 43 new builds, 123 rebuilds and refurbishments, and 28 durable upgrades. Overall, from August 2012, across the Territory that is 383 new builds, 474 refurbishments, 131 functional upgrades and 477 durable upgrades.
As you can see, it is critical to have appropriate and affordable housing. Housing that is not squeezed due to long wait lists or overcrowding is a key component of health outcomes in remote parts of the Territory. There is an example of what this government is doing to ease some of that.
It is a Back on Track plan, and the Country Liberals government’s plan to improve health outcomes across the Northern Territory is a deep commitment through a number of initiatives.
I will talk about the Sport Voucher Scheme and people getting back into sport. Never before have we seen so many people participate in sport. There are grassroots sports programs across remote parts of the Northern Territory. Some of the communities in the remote parts of the Northern Territory have embraced this program like never before. The sports program, Active Healthy People, will reduce health problems, as well as increasing funding to our peak sporting bodies so they can deliver more of these programs in remote parts of the Territory.
As the Minister for Central Australia, I have been impressed by the impact this government has had on improving access to health services in Central Australia …
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 67: digression from the subject. The ministerial statement is called the Aboriginal Health Workers Back on Track Plan. We have now moved to every portfolio the minister has, and we have barely had one word about the statement.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, the statement is about Aboriginal Health Workers. If you could try to contain your comments to that subject please.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Speaker, Aboriginal Health Workers treat Aboriginal people in the bush in the clinics. The whole point of the subject is to increase the number of Aboriginal Health Workers so we can address Aboriginal health issues. I am talking very specifically about Aboriginal health issues and the measures this government is undertaking to decrease Aboriginal health issues and improve Aboriginal health outcomes. Aboriginal Health Workers is one measure. I am very sorry the member for Nelson is not interested in listening to my response to the statement, but a leopard does not change its spots.
The government’s suite of alcohol packages is protecting the community from an enormous amount of harm. The government’s initiatives, again, have been sensational. Through the temporary beat locations we are recording some of the lowest crime stats across the Northern Territory in decades. They have worked, as have the alcohol measures including the Alcohol Protection Orders, which have gone an enormous way to reducing Aboriginal health issues in the Territory.
The Alice Springs Hospital community recently celebrated the one-year anniversary of the new emergency department to cut those waiting lists. As I said, Labor presided over some of the longest waiting lists in the country at times. It is now up to the Country Liberals government to address that. The emergency department has recorded more than 43 000 attendances since the Country Liberals government built the larger facility in June last year. That is an enormous number of people presenting at the hospital but, again, we are a victim of our circumstance in the NT.
The government spent $391 000 in extra funding to support palliative respite care services. The hospital will receive $29.9m for continued fire protection, air conditioning and remediation works. I know that has been on the books for a long time, but this government is committed to continuing that program and delivering first-class health services in Central Australia. I have mentioned PATS is very important. We campaigned very hard on it, and I am pleased to say as a government we have delivered.
I am very pleased to support the statement and support Aboriginal Health Workers in remote parts of the Northern Territory. As I have highlighted, a raft of measures has been put in place by this government to support and deliver positive Aboriginal health outcomes. They are the most vulnerable of Territorians, due largely to the circumstances in which they live.
The government, through my portfolios of Sport and Recreation, Housing, and even Arts, is doing everything it possibly can to deliver the best outcomes so those people have the best chance of contributing meaningfully to life, but also having a happy and healthy life.
Madam Speaker, this statement and initiative by the Giles Country Liberals government, led by the Health Minister, is well overdue. There is a fair bit of work to do to get us back on track, but that is exactly what this government will be doing. It is what we continue to do, and it is what we intend on delivering.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I used to be accused of being the kingmaker. I have just heard the king of spin. By gee, that was a good one, I tell you! So many years’ experience as a shock jock on 8HA.
Be that as it may, I thank the minister for his review of every portfolio he has. It is important. I know, in all seriousness, he is concerned about the state of affairs when it comes to Aboriginal Health Practitioners.
I want to tell a little history. My wife was raised at Daly River Mission, and the nuns trained her in the local clinic. She then moved to Darwin to study as a nursing aide, which I do not think we have any more; they probably have some fancy name for it. She spent two years as a nursing aide. She spent some time in Sydney not doing that, then came back to Daly River where I happened to notice her and asked her if she would be my wife.
In the meantime, she also did some study in Sacred Heart Hospital Moreland in Melbourne. She was very good at her job. We moved to Bathurst Island for a little while, and when we went back to Daly River in 1981, she was one of the first Aboriginal Health Workers operating in the Northern Territory. It was around that time she went to Katherine. The Katherine region was the centre for training Aboriginal Health Workers at that stage. She worked for three years in the clinic at Nauiyu Nambiyu, which had obviously changed from the mission.
Aboriginal Health Practitioners play an important role in delivering health services in communities, because they are local people who understand and know their people, and who are comfortable working with them.
Although I do not have the figures from Charles Darwin University, I hope Aboriginal Health Practitioners do not just stay Aboriginal Health Practitioners but advance into nursing. That is where we have to put some effort. We need more Aboriginal doctors. Aboriginal people are now studying to be doctors. We might have some qualified in that area. It is not just about Aboriginal Health Practitioners, it is about promoting opportunities for Aboriginal people to be part of the health portfolio for the whole of the Northern Territory.
Many people in Royal Darwin Hospital are Aboriginal. Many people who turn up there, and probably at other hospitals in the Northern Territory, are Aboriginal – not all. That means we need to put more emphasis on making sure people are trained, can work with people they know, and those people are comfortable with the people treating them.
We have some great organisations in the Northern Territory. I met some people recently on my trip with the FASD committee. We met with Wurli-Wurlinjang, Sunrise, Katherine West Health Board, the health board in Tennant Creek and Congress in Alice Springs – organisations working directly with Aboriginal people in regard to health.
Madam Speaker, I am not here to debate whether the previous government did better than the present government. I believe Aboriginal Health Practitioners are a very important part of trying to improve the health of Indigenous people in the Northern Territory. Not only should we be promoting them, we should also be promoting opportunities for them to become nurses and doctors in the Northern Territory.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, I support the minister’s statement and her plan to increase the number of Aboriginal Health Workers to the level it was years ago. This government is right behind her in that regard.
For some history, I first came across Aboriginal Health Workers in the early 1980s when we first moved to the Territory and I was doing computer work with the Department of Health. They thought I should look at some of the health centres. I saw some in Central Australia. Yuendumu, Hermannsburg, Papunya and Santa Teresa are ones I specifically remember looking at. I looked at some in Katherine, although I cannot remember the names and am not sure if they are still there. I note the number of health clinics in the Territory has declined since 1997 and I am not sure why.
The thing that struck me at the end of last year when they held an awards ceremony for Aboriginal Health Practitioners outside was just about every speech referenced the fact that the number of health workers was declining and it would become an ongoing problem for us.
When you live in an Aboriginal community for any extended amount of time, you get to see what the people and their interactions are like. My observation is whenever an outsider comes into a community like Nauiyu, the local people are not inclined to be forthcoming in going to see those health workers. Every time I went there they would be free and I would get to see them, but that means many of the local people, because they are not keen on seeing outsiders, tend not to attend the clinic. Word gets around a community pretty quickly. I am sure the member for Arnhem would agree. Word soon spread around the Daly that the relief Aboriginal Health Workers said if you do not want to talk to them, you will have to stay away, so that has an impact on health.
Having been here so long, you see cycles in the public service and in just about everything in life. As with department names where they break them up and put them back together, they bring people into communities and separate them out. The same thing has happened with health centres. The minister has spoken about Wadeye and handing back to the community in a way to try to get more input. I applaud that because I have seen the cycle.
When I first moved to the Daly, the health clinic at Nauiyu was run by the community. I am going back a few years now, so I cannot remember how many Aboriginal Health Workers were there. One of the deals that was offered by the previous government – and I am not pointing the finger at them as it may have been the Commonwealth; I do not know all the facts – was to build a new clinic at Nauiyu. The deal was the Health department took over the provision of health services there. Rather than the community being given funding to run their own health centre, the deal was, ‘We will build you a new health clinic, but it will be run by the Health department’. I am not criticising the Health department either, but whether that contributed to the decline in the number of health workers at Nauiyu, I am not too sure. That has been a noticeable difference and I have never linked the two together, but it is an important point.
When you travel west of the Daly, you get to Peppimenarti. There is a health centre there which has its own management board. It is run by the community and employs Aboriginal Health Workers who make up probably half the staff. They are local people and that health clinic seems to function very well. When you travel there, you do not get any complaints from any of the staff or people. My observations have been that the community is healthier than some of the others. There are some facts we need to keep an eye on when we are talking about Aboriginal Health Workers.
The other thing is Batchelor Institute. Batchelor is in the Daly electorate, so I spend as much time as I can there. It is an institution I have a lot of time for in how it deals with a couple of things close to my heart. One is the health side, the Aboriginal Health Workers. Most of our Aboriginal Health Workers in the communities go through Batchelor, and the same with teachers. Minister Price obtained her teaching qualifications through Batchelor. Miriam Rose Baumann at Daly River also obtained hers there. They are two Indigenous women I have a lot of time and respect for.
The institute knows a lot about Indigenous people, the problems they have, and the difficulty they have being away from community, studying, overcrowding in houses – the previous speaker was talking about the housing problem. If people have to study, it adds to the difficulty for someone to become qualified in the Aboriginal health area, or any area. To be in a crowded house is very difficult.
I digress some more. I went to Nauiyu, and the deputy principal of the school there – I will not use his name – was a local Indigenous person. One of the criticisms he had was the school provided housing for teachers who came in from interstate, etcetera, and they were given two-bedroom units as part of their terms and conditions. He was the deputy principal of the school, and if he went home at night, he would have to be in a house of 20-odd people. To do any work at home was very hard. That gives you an idea of how hard it is to study.
My wife is a teacher, and I know teachers work very hard outside of hours. Add study into it and it is even more difficult.
The Batchelor Institute is one of the best things we have in the Northern Territory; it is part of CDU. They have a – I forget the word I should use …
A member: Campus.
Mr HIGGINS: They have a campus at Wadeye, and I believe it was one of the few not cut. They are also doing some training there with the local people in welding, home maintenance and things along those lines. It is something they need.
When they start to train Aboriginal Health Workers we must look more at training them in communities. The Batchelor Institute has a great deal of experience in that. We must talk to these people and see how it is done. The minister is very supportive of Batchelor Institute, and I place on the record that I am too.
I am very supportive of Aboriginal Health Workers, even though none of them will ever take blood from me. As you heard the other day, I do not give it up very easily and they get very nervous when they do it.
Madam Speaker, I fully support the statement.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I thank the Minister for Health for bringing this statement to the House. I am 100% supportive of the Back on Track plan. The more Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health workers or practitioners who complete a course and work in our remote and urban communities, the better the Territory will be.
I reiterate much of what has been said today already by the member for Wanguri, the minister in the statement, and a few others. It is important we employ local people from our communities – particularly our remote communities or even the urban communities like Bagot, 11 Mile or 15 Mile, etcetera – because they are role models. It is also an employment outcome to say, ‘There is a pathway for you to achieve and have some importance, not only in your life, but in your community as well’.
My mother, who trained as an Aboriginal Health Worker through Bagot community clinic, still works in that industry today. It is very important we encourage everyone in our communities – urban and remote – to participate in this. As a former lecturer of Batchelor Institute, I am 100% supportive of Batchelor Institute running the program through CDU. It is very important we have organisations and education institutions like Batchelor Institute able to run courses for Aboriginal people to give them every assistance and support they can in achieving what they want to do.
I am sure the member for Arnhem will talk about her great experience as a former health practitioner, so I am looking forward to that contribution from her. However, she would be fully aware, as I am fully aware through my mother, that the Aboriginal Health Practitioner role is a 24-hour job if you live in a community. Once you have a community person working in that role, it is not an 8.30 am to 4.30 pm job; it is whenever. If somebody has an injury, has a cut, a child is sick, or something has happened, they will knock on that door and go to somebody who they know can help them and they can trust to look after them and treat them respectfully, with the experience of making them feel better.
I say congratulations to two Tiwi people who recently graduated. It is excellent. They will be role models in the Tiwi. I hope this program is rolled out everywhere, and there are more enrolments in Batchelor Institute and we see a marked improvement. I place on the record that if we drop the ball in this space, we must move on and make sure we get this right.
The figures are 226 registered Aboriginal Health Practitioners in the Territory, and we have 340 nationally. So we are still doing okay. There might be a drop in numbers, but I am sure with this focus that will improve. With the three excellent – and I emphasise excellent – people who have been appointed – John Patterson, better known as Patto; Marion Scrymgour; and Donna Ah Chee – the minister has this right. They are probably three of the most experienced people in Aboriginal health. They will know the people to speak to, so they are the right people to head this campaign and be on this task force. As I said, the minister has this right.
One thing I would like to see, though – picking up on the statement – is that we have some equity employment entitlements for locally recruited health practitioners, compared with other health staff recruited from other places. I am talking about local Indigenous people in their communities given the same employment entitlements as somebody who has come from outside their community to work. That is one thing I ask the minister. I am sure the task force will have those opinions as well, or at least take that on as a recommendation from me.
Also, I raise the portability of conditions of service and leave entitlements. We need to facilitate the mobility of services. You might be a health worker in Wadeye, and have to go and stay in Peppimenarti or one of the Central Australian communities. Make some leeway and opportunity so somebody can work elsewhere – they might have to go on holidays or cultural business or, for family reasons, go to another community – and are able to move their employment entitlements and conditions of service and leave to that community.
I used to work at Batchelor Institute training Community Sport and Recreation officers from remote communities so they could run their own programs. In my experience, somebody would go away for cultural reasons, for a family death or something similar, and would lose their job. We need to have some flexibility around employment conditions if you want to get more Aboriginal Health Workers or Health Practitioners through the training and keep them employed. This is a very good opportunity for more employment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
Madam Speaker, as I said at the start, I thank the Minister for Health for bringing this on. I am 100% behind this. I hope, when she comes back into this Chamber in a year’s time, she will present a report saying there has been a massive increase in people starting Aboriginal Health Worker training, as Aboriginal Health Practitioners, through Batchelor. We all agree it is a great idea.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, I wish to speak about this very important issue. I also thank the minister very much for bringing this to this House. I cannot tell you how important the role of an Aboriginal Health Worker is, not only in communities but in an urban environment. I know that well, because, in 1990, I started work at the Port Hedland Town Council. In a town where there was a significant number of Indigenous people living in the area, there was not even an Aboriginal Health Worker working for the council. There was not even an Aboriginal environmental health worker working for the council.
You might say the Aboriginal Health Workers are very important, but everyone knows prevention is better than treatment. If you want to prevent health issues occurring in the communities, the best way to do that is by first engaging the Aboriginal environmental health workers and then the Aboriginal Health Workers. Many issues will be resolved at community level by the Aboriginal environmental health workers before they reach the clinic to be treated by the Aboriginal Health Workers.
When I finished working for the Health department in the Territory I worked for Danila Dilba Indigenous medical service as a clinic manager where I saw the importance of Aboriginal Health Workers. It was not only as health practitioners assisting doctors, but also as counsellors counselling people on health, family and child protection issues. I was very impressed. When I was sick and needed treatment, I would rather go to Danila Dilba and be treated by the Aboriginal Health Workers than go to one of the clinics where you pay and have to wait a significant period of time to be seen by a doctor.
I will also ignore the diatribe from the member for Greatorex who, as always, tried to rewrite history. Before the CLP came to power everything was hell, and after the CLP came to power, all of a sudden, we reached heaven. Everything done in the Territory happened after August 2012. He must have a short memory or was not in the Territory in 2001. In 2001, when we were training Aboriginal Health Workers at Danila Dilba, the Health department did not have its own Aboriginal Health Worker training and would poach our people by waving a carrot in front of them – a very big salary. Most of those were working for the mainstream Health department. They completely ignored the training needs of Aboriginal health organisations.
I believe the member for Arnhem can tell you about it because she is a trained Aboriginal Health Worker. She will tell you how many workers have come from the mainstream Health department in the past 10 years. Not only that, I maintain strong links with Aboriginal Health Workers to date. I recall when I was approached by them after the CLP government came to power and they were told any vacancy in remote clinics would be wiped out and not replaced. A number of Aboriginal Health Worker positions disappeared completely. That was done by the CLP government.
In addition, when I asked why in the Territory where one-third of the population is Indigenous and a significant number of people live in remote communities, we do not have Aboriginal Health Workers, the answer was, ‘The government has not allocated any money for Aboriginal Health Workers’. That is one of the reasons Batchelor does not train Aboriginal Health Workers.
In 1990 I taught at Pundulmurra college in Port Hedland where people from remote communities were trained in the basics of environmental health, and would go back to their communities and fix the water, the septic system, the sewerage, and go to the shops and talk to people about nutrition. All of a sudden, we saw an improvement in the health standards of the community.
To give you another example where I have personal experience, when I worked for the Territory Health department, one of the people who worked under me conducted an experiment on one of the communities. They registered what failed in every house. They wrote down everything such as whether there was hot water, the solar hot water system was working, the sewerage was working, the septic tank was working, and the road was bituminised.. They then looked at the health statistics at clinics. They got money from the Commonwealth and fixed the taps, the hot water system, the septic tanks, the toilets, bituminised the main road, and within a year, health problems had declined by 60%. That was done by Aboriginal Health Workers and Aboriginal environmental health workers.
I congratulate the minister for identifying and recognising the significance of Aboriginal Health Workers. However, let us make this statement not just say, ‘Look how good we are?’, let us make it a reality. Yes, you want to educate more Aboriginal Health Workers. Will these people have career pathways into the future or will they be stuck in the position of Aboriginal Health Worker forever?
What if we structure that program so people can start as Aboriginal Health Workers, and that education and experience is then recognised so they can become nurses? It would be a good idea, instead of having Aboriginal Health Workers only in remote clinics, to have Aboriginal nurses who come from the ranks of health workers.
Even better, before sending people into the remote communities to treat sick people, how about we train some Aboriginal environmental health workers, so they will go there, identify and rectify the health issues, and work with people on the ground to train them how to address these issues in order to prevent disease, rather than have to address these problems in the clinics later?
They can work together hand-in-hand and resolve many of the issues in remote communities and, in some cases, not only remote communities but urban communities. I will never forget, as a clinic manager, going out with a mobile team from Danila Dilba and not going far away from Darwin – just 11 km out – and looking at the living conditions of people in the camp you see as you go out of Darwin, passing the traffic lights near Palmerston. Some of the houses should have been condemned, but they were not. People live in these terrible conditions. The health workers from Danila Dilba put in the effort and told people how to look after these substandard houses, and we managed to alleviate many of the health problems.
The health problems were created because of the substandard houses and the conditions people had to live in. I remember very well the member for Fong Lim telling us that One Mile Dam was a hell hole when the environmental health workers – and I questioned it – told me the camp was in good condition. People made a lot of effort to improve the living conditions there. Can you imagine if we had Aboriginal environmental health workers working with communities, improving health conditions in remote communities?
The department loves this idea of Aboriginal Health Workers, because it can be a cheap substitute for nurses and other health professionals. I want you to go back and say, ‘Yes, we want Aboriginal Health Workers, but what about Aboriginal environmental health workers?’ If you want to address health issues, you have to make sure you prevent these problems to promote caring rather than treating.
Aboriginal Health Workers are fantastic and I support you 100%. I encourage you to look seriously at Aboriginal environmental health workers, then you will have the whole concept of Aboriginal Health Practitioners starting from the very beginning, from prevention, and having the people in the clinics to treat those diseases.
Ms LEE (Arnhem): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for bringing this statement to the House and congratulate her on taking the next step forward.
As all Health ministers – previous, past and present – would understand, it is hard work trying to understand remote health and the core issues Aboriginal Health Workers face in their day-to-day lives. Their job is not easy. They are faced with many challenges in the bush. Being an Aboriginal Health Practitioner for over nine years is a long time. They are your first point of contact; they work 24 hours a day and never have a break.
I have heard many members in this House contribute to this, but I never heard anybody touch on the core issues Aboriginal Health Practitioners face – the real problems.
The reason the majority of Aboriginal Health Workers do not exist anymore is, basically, the management and how the clinics are run. It is the team that is cutting them loose. They are not walking out of there because of the social issues and impacts of problems within the community; it is the team built into that clinic – the staffing – preventing them from going back and enjoying their work.
If you want to inspire Aboriginal people, you have to be straight with them and work with them properly. One of the biggest issues today and why many Aboriginal Health Workers are not interested in coming back into the clinic is because there is no support for them and no responsibilities given to them.
I heard the minister talk about Barunga clinic. The only reason Barunga clinic is one of the best-run clinics I have known – where I trained and worked in my profession – is because of the team we had there and the clinic manager. We built our work around honesty and the way we look at the community. We all had portfolios we were responsible for. Aboriginal Health Workers also stay on call, on a roster, and they are the first point of contact. RNs are always second. You are giving them the trust to work forward. You are giving them some responsibility, and that is all they need. That is the only way Aboriginal Health Workers will ever learn in their job. That is why many of them have given up over the years, because there is no more support and trust.
Maybe because they studied at Batchelor rather than university – English is better in one than the other when it comes to education. They are good at what they do. Mixing Aboriginal Health Workers with the modern Western society health works in an Aboriginal setting because they understand it better than anybody else. They can speak the local language and understand the family issues always happening around them. They understand the environment these kids and families live in. No one has touched on the issues Aboriginal Health Workers face.
I heard the member for Casuarina talk about Aboriginal environmental health practitioners. I have a different perspective to that. Aboriginal Health Practitioners do some of that work. Health promotion comes from a good team. Aboriginal Health Workers have been doing health promotion for years. That was part of my job when I was there. I had to go out with family groups – you cannot mix the whole community up. You cannot address a big group of women because they will not all agree with you. You have to go family by family. Our job was to go to each family and talk about health promotion. We had to go to the school and use our own health promotional material there.
There were trust issues with people from the department coming into the community who do not know – whether it is Sunrise Health or another organisation. They are not locals so of course the local people will not trust them. That is one of the biggest issues.
The big issues I found over the years were funding and Aboriginal health training. Training for Aboriginal Health Workers is vital. Most of them want to go further. Some of them are happy where they are. Some want to get to a senior Aboriginal Health Worker stage where they are comfortable. However, the funding always stops them from getting to that place and achieving the goals they need. It is hard for Aboriginal Health Workers in a remote area. They do not have as many resources as everybody else. They work hard at what they do, 24 hours a day. They are the first point of contact and they give their lives, sometimes, trying to save people.
They have attended road accidents and childbirths more than anybody I know. Most childbirths happen in communities, and Aboriginal Health Workers are there. Because they are mothers themselves they experienced it, they understand it, and they talk the young girls through it. It is common. That is the pride they live with – it is the trust. The numbers have dropped
I heard the member for Greatorex talk about housing. Housing for Aboriginal Health Practitioners is a big issue. RNs usually get the first preference on housing. For years there have been discussions around housing for Aboriginal Health Practitioners when they want to move around the place to upgrade their skills, etcetera. The minister talked about overcrowding and everything else. That is a big issue. But if he is talking about chronic disease, maybe he should refer to chronic disease, not disease spreading. There are family members who live very closely in these houses – they are not just anybody – and chronic disease is a big issue in the communities.
Some of the wording on certain issues is good. I congratulate the minister for the new breast screening bus. The ladies in Barunga enjoyed it. I was happy to be there on the day, and it was good. It is something that has never been done before, so it was interesting. It is pink, so the kids really liked it as well. Not only that, you are promoting healthy living with the kids, they feel comfortable. On the day they knew it was happening, the men stayed away from the bus, so it was good.
Many of the clinics now being built in remote areas have the culturally appropriate setting, so you have one side for males and the other for females. Culture is a big issue in remote communities, and if you do not understand the culture, then you do not understand the people. That is a good thing. That is from the past and present governments, so I will congratulate both of you for getting around that.
Shockingly, the numbers of Aboriginal Health Workers in the workforce have dropped. It was never a surprise to me; I always knew it would happen. To get there is a long road. Minister, it will be a hard one to crack. Health in remote areas has always been pretty hard. If you go to different areas, you will always have different perspectives from different Aboriginal Health Workers and managers. But it always comes down to the team and how it works. That is what brings the staff together and keeps them there. If you do not have that strong team support, then it will shatter. That is why many Aboriginal Health Workers resigned and will never come back.
However, it also comes down to housing. There is no support for housing, and it comes down to funding. There is no support for developing their career pathways. Many of them have talked about going into environmental health. Many have talked about counselling and palliative care. Many of them wanted to become registered nurses and go with RPL to do their medicine, but it is really hard because there are no facilities in remote community infrastructure. That is the biggest problem. They have to go away from their families for two to four weeks to study. It is hard on Aboriginal people who are used to being around a setting where they feel safe. When they go into an environment they do not know, it is scary for a first-timer.
I remember when I went to boarding school when I was 14; I cried all the way from the Central Arnhem turnoff to Darwin. Being away from my family was the biggest fear of my life, but I got used to it. I am used to it now. I still have little girls I leave home and I would love to go home and see them on the weekend as much as I want to. Sometimes I cannot and sometimes I can.
We make life choices. The sacrifices Aboriginal Health Workers make, to make everybody else’s lives on the community better, are something I will always commend them for. They are the most hard-working, devoted, dedicated, loyal workers to the core. They believe they are the saints, the healers, and they are. They have given their life and everything. Half of them have given up their family, had to bury their family, their children, and they continue to do their job. Some became really good counsellors over time. They could understand the situation better than anybody.
I also congratulate Donna Ah Chee, Marion Scrymgour and John Patterson on their appointment to the Back on Track Action Taskforce. It is great. You need grassroots people in this level as well so you have grassroots Aboriginal Health Practitioners talking about these issues. People have gone from the bottom of health all the way up, so they can relate to how everything is going and what should be done next, where we should go, and things like that. Congratulations to those three. It is a great appointment, and I believe they will do a great job. I am sure all the Aboriginal Health Workers will support them in their appointments.
The issue of Aboriginal Health Workers is a shady area to talk about. Aboriginal Health Workers have always been left in the dark too. You wonder why the numbers have gone down. They will continue to go down if the truth is not recognised. There are still some communities where health services are to be built, and that is the sad truth. There are some communities which already have good new health centres. The communities are really pushing for all this kind of infrastructure.
They are very supportive of Aboriginal Health Workers because they know they are the only thing they have left out there. They built that momentum. Because you are qualified, you cannot just walk into a clinic and that is your job for the rest of your life. If you do not have the trust of the community there is no way you can carry out your job. That is one of the core issues about Aboriginal Health Workers. If you do not receive the trust from the community there is no way you can do your job because no one will trust you to take blood – the little things that will help you develop into a better Aboriginal Health Worker.
Aboriginal Health Workers face a lot of criticism and are misunderstood most of the time. But they are and should be the core business. I have always said that. I was a facilitator as well. I went to Western Australia, South Australia and Queensland, training Aboriginal Health Practitioners for many years. I have realised in different states there are different regulations about what Aboriginal Health Workers can and cannot do. In the Northern Territory we are a privileged in what Aboriginal Health Workers can do. They take that responsibility on because I told them if they go to Queensland there is no way they can administer medication and stuff like that; a doctor has to do it. In the Northern Territory it is different; Aboriginal Health Workers can do that.
They have a CARPA manual like a bible they have to follow. It is really easy here for them and it is good. It is good the government recognises and promotes that a bit more because that is Aboriginal Health Workers’ passion when they get out there. Yes, the majority of them do not like seeing road accidents and stuff, but a few of us have the stomach to handle it.
The biggest issue is counselling for workers who go through that kind of trauma at work. There is no support for us with counselling and stuff like that, so that was a downside to the job. We had nobody to talk to. All we had was senior staff and the clinic managers.
If there is anything every health worker could give back – taking care of everybody, giving back to the community, giving your life, your love and everything is one of the biggest things you can do. It is like any lifesaving job; firefighters have the same ethics and morals at the end of the day. They are there to save lives and that is exactly what Aboriginal Health Workers do. It is the same as doctors and nurses at Royal Darwin Hospital. But we are the only ones doing primary health not secondary – that is the difference.
We work hard. Every health worker – I am not one anymore, but I can speak for them because it is a great privilege. I was one for a very long time. They work very hard at what they do.
Minister, I would be glad to see you go down this track. I will give you notes when you need them. There is nothing negative I can say about this because it is pretty good and I am looking forward to it. I really respect you so I am looking forward to what you can do in the next two years around health, especially remote health. I am sure all health workers are hoping for a better start.
Ms ANDERSON (Namatjira): Madam Speaker, I support the minister’s statement. I said when the minister received this portfolio if anyone can turn health around and check the closet as to what is missing in Aboriginal communities, or holistically in health, it would be this minister. She has had experience as a social worker at Alice Springs Hospital and has worked with Aboriginal Health Workers, Aboriginal interpreters and other social workers. She is very experienced in this field. It is fantastic, minister, that you are looking to bring this profession back because it is very important. It is a holistic approach to health.
These people are very important in this field because they are the people who have the first contact with any sick person who comes into the clinic. They live in the community, they speak the language, and might be next door neighbours to clients who face them at the clinic.
I take this opportunity to say happy birthday to a former health worker, who happens to be my daughter, Darelle. She was born on this day, thirty-something years ago. It is fantastic that she worked with the minister, not as an Aboriginal Health Worker, but as an Aboriginal liaison officer at the Alice Springs Hospital. It is a coincidence that you make this ministerial statement on her birthday. It brings back a lot of memories, because as she was growing up and working in this field, she had the opportunity to move into other areas. She saw the hardship the Aboriginal Health Workers went through, but all the good things they could do too. It gave her that transition to move into the area of the Aboriginal Interpreter Service and help our people understand.
It is so good to make sure this profession is back and operating to its full capacity and potential, because that is the vital link in the chain we need in the communities. These are the people who can say hello to the people and ask them in their own language why they bring their child to the clinic, or have discussions at a full council meeting about the problems the health services are encountering. I will go through some of it.
Some of our people can sit around all day with tiny little sores or boils and not think about going to the clinic. Then they will try to wake the nurse up at 9 pm for dressings for a boil. Those health workers are the ones who take all that information to meetings and say, ‘They have all day to come for a dressing at the clinic, do not wake these nurses up at 9 pm or 10 pm, because they work hard during the day doing important health work for our people, for the community, and looking after the people here. The last thing we want is you waking them up to get dressing for a boil, or because your child has a slight temperature.’
It is an education strategy this profession uses. When you look at health workers like Susan Abbott, who was a health worker for over 30 years – she worked in a community at Wallace Rockhole for many years without a doctor or nurse. A visiting nurse came in to give her backup and support. You have great health workers, as the minister knows, in the community of Hermannsburg/Ntaria – Marion Swift, Mary Anne Malbunka, Emslie Lankin and Renita Kantawarra.
Renita is so good she can do renal health as well; she is fantastic. She flies all the way to Gove to give her brother-in-law, Galarrwuy Yunupingu, a hand and put him on the dialysis machine. She stays there with the family and supports Margaret. She is fantastic.
These Aboriginal Health Workers can give the health profession stability – the clinics, nurses, doctors – they are the link. They bring the whole clinic atmosphere together. If there are angry clients then they are at the front saying, ‘We do not want you coming inside this clinic behaving like this. These concerns will be taken to the council. These people work too hard and it is not a place where you can abuse anyone.’ They are there to give their counterparts, the nurses and doctors, a great hand.
We have some fantastic nurses in Aboriginal communities, as you would know, minister. You have visited many communities in Central Australia. It is fantastic to see you do the road trips to ensure you give them that support as well, because it can be a lonely place for them to work in. It is great. You received a fantastic welcome at Hermannsburg and Titjikala when we went together.
You spoke in your speech – and the member for Arnhem also mentioned it – about the pink bus at Barunga. It amazes me that we have we not done this before. Why is it they have to wait for someone to discover it is necessary that it should happen for Aboriginal people on remote communities? The consistency and service at Barunga is what we now have to look to replicating in Central Australia and some of the Top End communities. The service has been given to the Barunga community so women can have their breasts examined for breast cancer, because it is a serious issue.
Talking about health in its entirety and holistically, we should have counselling services on remote Aboriginal communities for our kids who are on ganja and other drugs coming into our remote Aboriginal communities now like ice, heroin and cocaine, etcetera. We need to save our people from this ugliness. I have been affected terribly by our kids sniffing petrol. They did not have anywhere to go in the communities, or in Alice Springs, where they could get this counselling service. We will see the same thing with bigger drugs such as ice. We need to have our kids going to places where they can talk to people about their problems, because it is a lonely road for some and it affects many families.
I have been affected by my nieces and nephews being on ganja and other drugs, with my own son recently being admitted into hospital for overdosing on ice. It is a sad thing to see this happening, but we live in a society where we are growing rapidly and there are drugs being injected into our society by bad people who do not take into consideration what is happening and how they can destroy the lives of young people and families. We have to learn to cope with it. We can cope with it to a certain extent, but we need these facilities to give these young people a hand as well, so they have someone to talk to. It is because their head is so full of stuff they cannot see for themselves, and they need a hand and someone else to talk them through it.
I told someone that my sister was in a situation where she overdosed on tablets mixed with alcohol, only a couple of days ago. This is not something I am reporting because I have heard it; I am affected because it is my family members this is happening to. We need to look at health in its entirety and make sure these services are there for Aboriginal people to access. It should not be about what Labor can do and what the CLP can do. What is it that we are doing for Territorians, whether they are black or white? Are we getting the same services as Alice Springs, Darwin, Tennant Creek and Katherine? Of course we are not. We take the chance of living remotely. Yes, we understand we will not receive as many services as we should, but there should be some regional services available.
I heard the Minister for Tourism say, ‘We are doing a lot to support remote and rural Northern Territory’, and he named – I think I wrote down six or seven of the things he said are happening in remote and rural Northern Territory. There was the Palmerston hospital. That is not remote and rural, it is down the road. He talked about PATS and cardiac care. Some of my people access these services, but not to a great extent. It is not happening in the remote and rural Northern Territory, so he has his wires crossed as usual.
He also mentioned that the Alice Springs emergency service is fantastic for Alice Springs. But there are no huge services, apart from new clinics the Commonwealth has funded which have now come into the hands of the Country Liberal Party, such as the Hermannsburg clinic and the upgrades of Titjikala and Papunya which will happen soon. We need to make sure, instead of flogging each other across this Chamber, we talk about the services the bush is missing out on and how we can improve them.
It is great, minister, that you have picked on a service which could have gone unnoticed and disappeared. You have picked it up and said, ‘This is an important profession we need to look at’. I congratulate you and thank you for bringing this ministerial statement to the Chamber.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, likewise, I congratulate the minister on not only bringing the statement to the House, but the important and exciting work she is going to embark on. This is a very important element of community development and the development of the Northern Territory.
The statement was a good statement, but I just cannot get over the political slaps. I know where that stuff comes from. Having the privilege of sitting on that side where you sit, I used to see that stuff and skip over it. I suppose you can use it when you choose to. I will give you an example. In the Northern Territory, we have a Chief Minister who has been here 30 seconds. Right? I have been here more than half of my life and lived in some of the remotest parts of the Northern Territory. The Minister for Health has been here over 20 years and worked in the health sector. There is the slap.
What I am really saying is, between all of us we should be able to do something positive to develop some serious policy to represent the Northern Territory. It is great to get up in this House and have a conversation with the minister. It is an ordered environment where we can speak across the Chamber and put information forward. It is nice to be able to do that in a constructive sense, as opposed to continually having the political rhetoric thrown in, by some more than others.
It is important to reflect on the challenge the minister has embarked upon. When you talk about Indigenous employment and Aboriginal Health Workers, it is not just about Aboriginal Health Workers. I will take you back a decade. In the statement, you talked about the 1990s. I will shift the platform back a decade. I will take you back a further 10 years. Essentially, we are now struggling with the same issue we had with Aboriginal police aides and trackers. We are struggling with the issue of Aboriginal Health Workers, the employment of Aboriginal teachers and teachers’ assistants, and of Aboriginal support staff in the councils and the community organisations. You have to ask yourself why.
You mentioned in this statement that you will research and explore the barriers. If you look at the major reform in local government and the CLP’s election campaign around that, it was very difficult to get any clean air when in many of the regional remote areas, there were employment programs running at less than 20%. If people were not going to work, jobs were not getting done, and a clever opposition was able to exploit that with the toxic shire election campaign that worked very well.
At the same time, that negativity reinforced the mantra of ‘Why go to work? It is so bad I do not want to go to work because these people are telling me.’ The media ran it, and that negativity started across the Territory. I used to debate it on the front line: if people do not get up and go to work, then there will not be any service delivery.
Minister, we faced many critical changes over the last 30 years. I encourage the member for Nelson to speak in this debate because I want to hear of that era I just missed out on. I arrived in the Northern Territory on the tail of what I call that other era going back a little further into the 1960s and the 1970s.
We have to look at the pragmatics and build on the positives. In having the opportunity to have a conversation with the minister, it is mentioned in the statement:
Many of my colleagues talked about working alongside Aboriginal Health Workers in remote health, community health, renal services and, of course, on the wards of Alice Springs Hospital and at the Central Australian Aboriginal Congress.
I will put in a word for the people who support renal patients in self-dialysis. This is a cohort we can build off, because there are some sensational people who make that major journey, go away for extensive training and support the renal patient – whether it be a family member, a friend or an associate – and they come back to the community and continue, normally three days a week, in an intensive role supporting that renal dialysis patient. I can speak about two areas in Borroloola and Alpurrurulam where I learn of how this takes place. There are community people involved in the health sector doing an extremely important, life-changing job.
However, the debate now is about the standards and how to manage that environment. In both those places – Alpurrurulam is a little more under control, but in Borroloola they have some issues. Minister, you would know the clinics are so busy and so intensive they do not have the opportunity to keep up that interface to ensure the self-dialysis units are up to standard and the routines and protocols are being adhered to. It is not only the hospital-grade cleaning and management in those units, it is also the occupational health and safety issues about moving heavy boxes of water and all the associated issues around those clinical items needed to operate the machines.
We could probably do a lot better in that environment. At a little place like Alpurrurulam, it is a lot easier and the clinic staff have an easier interface to make sure those standards are kept. In a town like Borroloola, it can get a lot more chaotic. We need to focus on how we can do the job better and support people.
I am coming from the old days when I remember the clinics – and to tell you the truth, I lived in many places that did not have clinics. I would visit communities which were always very busy places, with local workers.
It was good to hear the members for Arnhem and Namatjira participate in this debate and talk about the difficult issues nicely. You picked up on the ‘difficult nicely’ because, let us face it, it is a very hard job in the health sector. When you go into the regional and remote areas, it is extremely challenging work. We have to acknowledge that incredible professional service our health professionals provide.
They were busy places with many workers. It has now become very bureaucratic and very intensive. The clinical standards and the occupational health and safety standards – or better put, maybe the duty of care – has intensified. Health professionals operating in those spheres want, and need, to get the job done. Therefore, it becomes difficult to operate with cultural contingencies. We often find, because the local employees have associated cultural contingencies they have to deal with, they are overlooked and the jobs start to be performed by family members, people brought in, or associates, and then this becomes a clinic that is absent of local people. That culture can, as the member for Arnhem put it, detract form that inclusive feeling and that environment where people feel welcome, comfortable and supported. This is not a blame issue because the health professionals have life and death situations and have to get the job done, and they do it to the highest possible standard. However, we need to somehow broker those cultural elements and get a better balance because it has slipped away.
What do you do? What is the alternative? What I see now in clinics I visit in the electorate of Barkly is many support staff. There are a lot of ancillary workers. The drivers are very interesting. I like to talk to the drivers because they are the people who get the patients. They really know the country, the community and the families, and they give you a lot of good information and stories.
There are cleaners, janitors and gardeners. These jobs can be built on. Those workers who have taken that step are on the 9 am to 5 pm grind, and they get the Monday to Friday whitefella stuff. I encourage them to think about taking the next step and becoming health professionals. Take all that good work ethic and understanding of the mainstream to the next level.
The member for Arnhem talked about the challenges that come with going away for training and education, and so forth. If we start to look at some pragmatics and focus on some of those people already in the system, then we can get a little further. This relates to policy development from the government. I reiterate what the member for Casuarina said about environmental health officers in policy development. I went straight up to him and said, ‘I really like that idea. I hope you submit that before you retire, because that would complement good Labor policy development.’ That is an area we share with everyone, because it is what we are all about.
The statement also mentioned needing to know the barriers to successful outcomes. That is where I reflected on the previous decade. As a small example, when I was on Brunette Downs running the one-teacher school there, there were about 60 people living on the station. This is 1981 I am talking about. There was a fully operational clinic with a qualified sister all paid for by AACo, which had just taken over from King Ranch. I ran the school. Everyone was busy on that station. The men were going to work in various occupations from bore maintenance to bore running, stock camps, to yard work and processing cattle. There were women working in the kitchen, in the store, and gardening around the station. The kids were at school, which I ran. There were staff employed at the school. I had a janitor and an assistant teacher. Everyone was focused every day. However, things have changed dramatically since then.
I go to another example of a community I went to from Brunette Downs, to start the first of five Aboriginal schools in the Barkly. It was on a cattle station. Once again, the cattle station looked after the medical needs and we had a visit once a month from the DMO. They were always great visits where a team would come into the station and everyone would present. It was not only a social occasion, but a time to have your health needs addressed, and it was very well coordinated. Once again, the men and women worked around the station, and everyone was busy. The kids came to school. I had Aboriginal staff at the school and I had an ambition to work myself into unemployment. I wanted to be unemployed because I wanted the Aboriginal people to take over my job, as well as the other jobs. Things have changed.
That road was a track. When I first went there, to cover about 130 km of dirt road took between three and four hours. The traffic data study on that road in 2012, when it was still in the intensity of the federal intervention, showed 60 cars a day on that road. On that same road, I was stuck for three days at one stage, bogged, before anyone came along to help me. It was Jimmy Herreen out of Hatches Creek – a miner – who found me and helped me out of the bog hole, and supported me all the way to the Stuart Highway.
There were 60 cars a day 30 years later. In telling this story, I highlight a mobility factor I have never seen before in the Territory. Because of the improvements in road transport infrastructure and in cars, there is a high mobility factor within communities. People are travelling all the time, and travelling everywhere. That road now supports conventional vehicles and people are moving all the time.
If you are mobile to that degree, it is very difficult to hold down a job. We then have to understand the cultural context, because it is not good enough to say to a person from that community, ‘Hey, you are not working, you are not at work’, because often these cultural responsibilities translate to work. We have to start trying to bridge this gap in understanding that there are very important cultural jobs that take the form of mobility and movement which takes people away from mainstream employment. Service delivery suffers in that.
On the other hand, there is what I call impulsive behaviour, and I continually debate with constituents about, ‘I have to go to town, therefore, my wife and children are coming with me’. It could be Tuesday morning, the kids have to go to school, they have a job, and their wife has an appointment at the clinic. Can they not wait until Friday afternoon?’ That might seem a bit strange. It is definitely a European perspective, but I have no trouble in having that debate because the dominance of this impulsive behaviour which creates high mobility and takes people away from their normal daily lives and being busy in the community.
There are problems associated with that because if the family gets stuck or has trouble in town, if dad gets into trouble with a motor traffic offence or dad or other family members are in trouble with alcohol abuse, it can lead to gaol. These things can spiral out of control, then there is the dislocation of that family. Where did it start? With impulsive behaviour, ‘I have to go to Tennant Creek today’. ‘Do you really?’ I will debate that and will continue to debate it. Often I lose that argument, but sometimes I win it. One of the pragmatic barriers to developing any workforce is to have that difficult conversation.
In education, you can think very creatively around that conversation with alternative timetables. You can start to explore that conversation. A brave government would want to go down that road. I was operating an alternative timetable for three outstation schools in 1989, but it was not adopted system-wide. It was an arrangement agreed to between the community, me and my family, and the department of Education, and it worked really well. When I left, it continued to work well. It was an isolated case agreement because it was in some of the most remote country of the northeast Barkly.
If the minister wants to go down this road and explore the barriers to employment, there will be layers of constraints. Some will be very pragmatic, others will be more culturally sensitive, and others will relate to bureaucracy. However, if you are serious about exploring each of these layers, you could be coming up with something very creative in that application provided in pilot models, where it is tried and tested. Then, what works can be rolled out systemically. That is a pragmatic way to go.
I acknowledge the minister for this exciting, very important work to increase the workforce of Aboriginal Health Workers. The lessons we learn will translate to all sorts of support services in Justice, Education, regional councils and Aboriginal organisations. It will be about moving forward.
Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for the opportunity to have a conversation with her in an ordered environment where we can exchange ideas. There are some important staff upstairs monitoring this, and hopefully it all fuses together to come out as some important policy development.
________________________
Distinguished Visitors
Hon Noel Padgham and Plaxy Purich
Distinguished Visitors
Hon Noel Padgham and Plaxy Purich
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I recognise some guests in the Speaker’s Gallery: a former member of this Chamber, the retired member for Tiwi/Koolpinyah/Nelson, Noel Padgham, and the retired Litchfield councillor Plaxy Purich. Welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
_________________________
Mrs PRICE (Community Services): Madam Speaker, I will not speak too long. I support this statement on the Country Liberal government’s plan to get the number of Aboriginal Health Practitioners back on track.
We know in the regions, in the remote communities, they are very important. Their role is very important to their people and everybody else. I am alarmed that the number of Aboriginal Health Workers employed in the Northern Territory government clinics has dropped by 40%. Some of my relatives who have been out of work have been health workers for years. I give full credit to them.
In the Warlpiri communities they had their own health organisation called WYN health. WYN is Willowra, Yuendumu, Nyirripi Health. That was working very well. It employed Aboriginal people in the communities such as Willowra, Yuendumu and Nyirripi. I give credit to people such as Nola Napangari, Mathew and Grace Egan, Robert Robertson, Jefferson Williams, Lotti Williams, Eddie Robertson, Hamilton Morris, Ned Wilson, and April Nangala-Martin, who is still working at the health clinic at Willowra.
Yes, some communities have been left without health practitioners in their clinics for years. I was so disappointed when Warren Snowdon, who was the Indigenous Health minister, did not support WYN health. He decided it should come under the Northern Territory health service. He did not recognise the importance of what WYN health brought to those three communities. They had jobs, were proud they were independent, and knew exactly what to do.
I went to a couple of meetings some of the WYN health workers had with Warren Snowdon when he was the minister for Indigenous Health. We sat around a table and talked about how important it was that they have their own independent health organisation, but it fell on deaf ears. That was frustrating for them and for me, and there was no support whatsoever. Now WYN health does not exist, but the health workers still do. They are still getting on with the job. Nola Napangari still works at the Nyirripi Health Centre. Mathew and Grace Egan have now put their hands up to do dialysis at Yuendumu, and help their people with the dialysis machines they helped set up in these communities.
I mentioned to the member for Araluen that we need more health workers. Look at what we are doing now. We are talking about FASD. Who do we need out there who is important to make sure we get the message across to mothers that they should not be drinking? Who else would be better than the Aboriginal Health Workers who have the language, are related, know where to find these people, and are the first contact for anything in these communities. These people are passionate because they know they are getting their job done and are helping their people have a better lifestyle. We need to get more of these people on board.
I am so proud that this government and our Minister for Health has decided it is important to help get the health workers back on board, because they are the best people to have on the ground in the remote communities. It also provides job opportunities for them and for local people. We want to make sure we provide these opportunities, that other people look at them as role models and want to be part of that change. We want to make sure they are there to help their people get on their feet and have a better, healthier lifestyle.
It was sad when WYN stopped functioning, because many of those health workers fought really hard to have that organisation that was theirs; they owned it and drove it. In my electorate of Stuart I have visited clinics in Barunga, Beswick, Lajamanu, Nyirripi and Willowra, and I am proud to see Aboriginal people behind the desk. I am proud to see Aboriginal Health Workers talking in their own language to their clients. It is very important to have that. It is very important because I lost many family members to breast cancer as they were too scared to get themselves checked out. It would be great to have male and female health workers, because they need to have a separate section where they talk about their problems with a male nurse or a female nurse or health worker. It makes a huge difference when we have the health workers working in the communities.
Mr Deputy Speaker, we have a real opportunity to match the improvements in closing the gap in the health status of Indigenous and non-Indigenous people. Increasing the Aboriginal health workforce will make a huge difference for the Northern Territory and for us as a whole, so I support this statement.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Health): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank each of the members of this Assembly who have contributed to this debate. I am, quite frankly, a little overwhelmed with the support I have been given on this very important issue. Sometimes there is a bit of division, but today I sense we are all on the same page. Despite our differences in political leanings, it is unanimous that this is an incredibly important issue to try to address: the dwindling number of Aboriginal Health Workers throughout the Northern Territory, particularly in remote areas.
If I am reading the room right, the general sentiment is that having Aboriginal Health Workers, particularly in remote health clinics, is essential. I must quote the member for Arnhem who said:
… if you do not understand the culture, you do not understand the people.
Much of what she said was the type of information we need to guide us in solving this problem we are faced with of the dwindling number of Aboriginal Health Practitioners throughout the Northern Territory.
She gave some wonderful advice. In her opinion, the problem is not about the personal or social issues confronted by these individual Aboriginal Health Practitioners, it is about the structural or management problems in a lot of clinics where Aboriginal Health Workers do not feel supported, do not feel the strength of a team behind them, and do not feel trusted to do their job. That translates into feeling inadequate and not valued. That, for all of us, is an important part of having job satisfaction and keeping us in the jobs we are doing. We must feel valued and feel a part of the team. I thank the member for Arnhem for her wonderful appraisal of why she thinks things are going wrong. As an Aboriginal Health Worker of many years, she is probably one of the most qualified people in this Chamber to comment on this issue.
Other people made some wonderful contributions too. The members for Namatjira and Barkly talked about this being a community development approach to solving a problem, which it is. That is one thing I did not emphasise enough in my statement; this problem has to be tackled on a community-by-community basis.
It is about grassroots community development. It is about identifying what the issues are for each community, whereby Aboriginal Health Workers are not being recruited and retained in their positions. It is not a one-size-fits-all policy or initiative that we are looking at, it will vary from community to community.
Some communities are doing well. We still have approximately 77 out of 100 positions currently filled in the Northern Territory government. We are still doing okay, but we must lift the bar and improve on that. We have a heck of a lot of work to do, going around to each community which is not travelling too well and working out why.
An update for the Chamber is that in the communities we have visited to start this dialogue about getting back on track, getting more Aboriginal Health Practitioners into the clinics, and employing local Aboriginal people into those positions, we are already seeing a response. There are people in the communities who want to work in these positions. It is extremely encouraging.
One of the most recent conversations I had was at Maningrida two weeks ago. We sat with the Malabam Health Board and a man who is employed as an Aboriginal Health Practitioner at the clinic started to talk about how years ago in Maningrida, Aboriginal Health Workers were chosen to represent the eight clan groups. He said there would be nothing stopping us, or him, talking to those clan groups and getting them to nominate a suitable person to become an Aboriginal Health Worker. We talked about training and how Batchelor had expressed an ability to be flexible in how they provide training and support to any group of people interested in becoming Aboriginal Health Practitioners.
In a very short period of time, we quickly identified solutions to a number of the obstacles and problems that Maningrida was facing. We are due to meet with them again in about six to eight weeks’ time. We will continue discussion to monitor the situation and ensure we progress these ideas and make sure there is action. Action is what has been lacking over the last 10 years – action to address a problem which is not insurmountable, but can be solved. It takes a bit of initiative, focus and dedication from the Department of Health first, but also across the Territory. If people know they are being supported, they are a part of a new, fresh initiative to come on board and work as Aboriginal Health Practitioners, we are halfway there.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am very encouraged by the response from the Chamber today. I am very excited about this initiative. It will bear fruit, but it will also probably turn up other issues we can deal with along the way. It is complementary to our initiative and push towards encouraging communities to take greater control of their clinics. It is also consistent with our initiative to drive economic development on communities, because economic development means employment of local people. This is part of a much bigger focus of this government in our commitment to the bush, the regions, and economic development.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Planning and Building Reforms –
Reducing Red Tape
Planning and Building Reforms –
Reducing Red Tape
Mr CHANDLER (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Northern Territory is well and truly open for business. The best example of this is how the Country Liberals are making it easier to work with government.
My Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment continues to identify opportunities to streamline processes for the benefit of business and the community. We have the biggest land release program in the Northern Territory’s history, which will mean more construction, more development and more people dealing with the government.
If we do not make working with government an efficient and easy experience, the Territory will not realise its full potential. Streamlining processes will result in time savings on approval processes, provide greater certainty on outcomes of development proposals, and greater efficiency in processing.
I would like to share some of the great work my department has been doing in this area to reduce red tape. In 2013 we approved 810 development applications and 2810 building applications, with an average processing time of 56 days. This is by far the fastest processing time anywhere in Australia, proving the Northern Territory really is open for business.
The progressive online lodgement of development applications has increased the speed of processing of applications, and applicants can track the progress of their applications.
People may now get their applications for subdivision clearance, commonly referred to as Part 5, approved on the day of lodgement, provided they supply all clearance documents, thereby reducing the time in obtaining titles as part of the subdivision process.
Planning processes have been improved and streamlined with the continued development of the Development One Stop Shop that allows developers and the general public to access information about both the development application process and current applications online. Processing of development applications is being reviewed on an ongoing basis to minimise assessment times. Members of the public can access proposals and make submissions online.
Development Consent Authority agendas are now also available to be viewed by the public online, two days prior to DCA meetings. This initiative provides improved transparency in the planning process by improving access to DCA reports, particularly for people living in regional and remote areas. Prior to this initiative, people were only able to access paper copies by visiting departmental offices in Darwin, Alice Springs and Katherine.
Delegations for all divisions of the DCA have also been reviewed to facilitate the processing of the DCA’s decisions in a more efficient manner that would generally allow applicants to receive a determination in a shorter time frame after meetings.
Potential amendments to the NT Planning Scheme are being investigated by my department to identify low-risk, low-impact land uses which will reduce regulatory burden and unnecessary red tape, including but not limited to: reviewing land use tables in residential, industrial, and commercial zones with the aim of making more land uses permitted or self-assessable; and policies for wider housing choice such as smaller lots in the multiple dwelling zones.
An amendment to the multiple dwelling zone now allows for 300 m freehold lots. Deregulation of dependent units, commonly known as granny flats, now allows the occupant of an independent unit to be someone other than a dependant of a resident from the primary dwelling. It will also increase the size of permitted units in rural areas by 30 m. This is a great initiative towards providing more housing choices for Territorians and addressing the housing shortage in the Northern Territory – another step the Country Liberals have taken to reduce the cost of living.
Government has amended the Planning Act to provide for a concurrent assessment of planning scheme amendments and development applications creating a single process for rezoning and development in the planning legislation to save time and, of course, money. This amendment commenced on 1 May 2014.
A new survey plan lodgement process was introduced on 1 July 2014. Under the new survey plan regime, it is mandatory for licensed surveyors to lodge with the Surveyor-General’s Office the survey plan, associated survey information, and all of the land development or administrative statutory approvals.
To maximise internal plan approval efficiencies, the following new processes have been implemented:
The survey plan will only be accepted as lodged if the survey plan and normal reports are accompanied by evidence of all statutory approvals from external agencies. This puts the time lines and efficiency of securing these approvals within the surveyor’s or developer’s project control.
The plans have been examined by an accredited surveyor which ensures a consistent plan examination regime under the control of the lodging surveyor, with no internal plan examination delays.
In March 2009, the former government announced a moratorium of prosecution for buildings with either incomplete or no building certification. The purpose for the moratorium was to allow property owners with buildings that had outstanding approvals additional time to achieve compliance. Successive governments have extended the moratorium, including this one. The continuation, however, of the moratorium with no clear resolution is, of course, not the answer. It is government’s intention to introduce reforms to the Building Act later in 2014 which will provide alternate pathways to building certification, increase capacity within the certification industry, and encourage a culture of compliance.
This move followed extensive industry and community consultation, and the release of a discussion paper which detailed reforms to address problems that exist under the moratorium. These proposed reforms will have three tiers of certification: occupancy permit; certificate of substantial compliance; and certificate of existence. The reforms are proposed to include the introduction of a building inspector category, progressive lodgement of building certificates, government-delivered service in addition to private sector, exempt categories of building work, work that may be self-certified, and the introduction of infringement notices for building practitioners for non-compliance with regulations.
Infringement notices will be a less harsh form of enforcement than the existing process of prosecution through the court. Court prosecutions are costly, stressful and time-consuming for the building practitioner and government. Building practitioners have an important role in ensuring they comply with their statutory obligations, as this can have significant financial and safety repercussions for the owners and the general community.
The development of the Building Approvals Online system has been completed and rolled out to the building certification industry. Building Approvals Online enables private building certifiers to lodge their building approval documents online. This replaces the paper-based lodgement system which imposes costs to the industry – copying and delivery – and government – data entry, filing and storage. It also removes the constraint to certifiers of only lodging during office hours. The interesting fact is 80% of all applications are now being lodged online.
The next step is the digitising of all pre-existing building records, which will enable online access of all building records, increase efficiency for all internal and external clients, and reduce operational costs and risks to government. Placing online all historical building control areas will inform and assist certifiers and property owners with building compliance. A policy has been developed and introduced that enables the Land Titles Office to accept copies of swimming pool fence certificates rather than needing evidence of an original certificate every time a property is transacted. This will reduce time and effort for conveyancers.
My department is investigating online lodgements of applications for plumbers, electrical workers, architects and building practitioners. In recognition of the significant benefits of location intelligence to be gained across NTG systems, a spatially enabling government coordination committee has been established. The new coordinating committee will promote the importance and benefits of location intelligence in business systems by coordinating the development of spatial systems, data management and services through the collaboration and alignment of effort across agencies to reduce duplication, improve processes and efficiencies, and ensure an all-of-government approach to spatially enabling government.
There is no doubt that in my portfolio extensive work is being undertaken to continue to reduce red tape. Great progress has been made in the past two years, and will continue to occur as we focus on working collaboratively with industry in the coming years. That is a fair bit of work for a department to undertake in the last two years, and I congratulate the hard work of the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the statement be noted.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Mr Deputy Speaker, I agree with the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment. There was one remark in today’s statement that is beyond dispute. Undeterred by the dysfunction that has engulfed the CLP government, the minister stated:
- If we do not make working with government an efficient and easy experience the Territory will not realise its full potential.
I could not agree more. I am sure hard-working businesses and the community in general agree the Territory will not realise its full potential unless working with the government is easy and efficient. But the sad reality is this CLP administration, led by an incompetent and out-of-touch Chief Minister, has made working effectively with the government impossible.
The disgraced former Treasurer is languishing on the backbench and the Chief Minister cannot find a replacement. The Cabinet is in chaos and is disunited, and the public service lacks direction and leadership. How could working with the government possibly be an easy and efficient experience? How could the Territory possibly achieve its full potential under a government led by an inexperienced and arrogant Chief Minister who has no idea how to govern?
I am constantly approached by businessmen and women who cannot see the minister about important development opportunities or serious matters relevant to planning and building issues. He is simple unavailable and decision-making has ground to a halt. Is this really the way the minister is helping the Territory realise its full potential? It demonstrates how out of touch the minister is with the needs of Territory entrepreneurs and the risk our businessmen and women take to invest in businesses and grow our economy. A minister for Lands and Planning who is missing in action and preoccupied with CLP infighting is the last thing our Territory businesses need. Many former CLP supporters in the building and construction industry have lost faith in the government and will not vote for the CLP again. The chaos and uncertainty in the government are compromising certainty for investors, property owners and developers alike.
How can the Territory possibly realise its full potential when investors are confronted by a dysfunctional CLP government, bereft of direction and driven by personal acrimony? The minister is part of this problem, sadly. The abject failure of this minister stands in stark contrast to achievements of the previous Labor government.
In government, Labor fast-tracked five new suburbs in Palmerston. Land release has ground to a halt under the CPL government. We planned the development of the new city, Weddell, suitable for 45 000 people. These plans have been abandoned by the CLP.
We undertook strategic planning decisions around large infrastructure projects such as Darwin prison, the Marine Supply Base and the INPEX workers’ village. These projects drove economic growth and positioned the Territory for a prosperous future.
The CLP government has promised to deliver 6500 new dwellings, most of these slated for release after the next Territory election. Territorians will not be hoodwinked by this blatant deception, as 6500 new dwellings would be a challenge for a competent government, but the chaos and dysfunction endemic in the CLP regime will condemn its promise to failure. How could a government without a Treasurer, led by an incompetent, immature and arrogant Chief Minister, deliver anything of substance, let alone 6500 new dwellings?
You are big on expensive TV ads, glossy brochures – we saw another one released today – and media stunts, but not on well-resourced programs focused on achievable outcomes. If you value your staff, why have you decreased allocations to the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment, and programs in the Land Development Corporation – key agencies in any sound strategy to develop the Territory?
We can only sympathise with the hard-working staff in the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment, who have seen their budgets cut and must now operate without the direction or leadership from their minister.
I note the minister’s statement mentions the Development Consent Authority, but is silent on the appointment of the former Chief Minister and lobbyist, Denis Burke, to the position of DCA Chair. This appointment involves a clear conflict of interest, and is one of a long list of jobs for the boys funded by Territory taxpayers in the two years since the CLP came to office. There is growing community concern and anger about the ongoing appointments of CLP mates, particularly to jobs involving regulatory and commercial functions. The Chief Minister’s hand-picked Chair of the Land Development Corporation, and Foundation 51 Director, has resigned under the pressure of public opinion.
Mr Deputy Speaker, it is pleasing to see further work on online lodgement of applications and the one-stop shop for building approvals established by the former Labor government. I commend the department for its work on these initiatives. But working with this government is not an easy and efficient experience. The minister and his colleagues are holding the Territory back. The community and Territorians deserve better.
Debate adjourned.
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 97)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This bill amends the Anti-Discrimination Act. The Anti-Discrimination Act prohibits discrimination and other related wrongful conduct, and provides for the investigation and conciliation of, and inquiry into, complaints in relation to such discrimination and conduct.
Earlier this year, I flagged that I would introduce an amendment to the Anti-Discrimination Act through a private members’ bill, to make racial vilification unlawful. It is clear that Territorians should have the benefit of protection from racial vilification.
There is confusion at the federal level as to what is planned with federal anti-discrimination legislation, and I want to ensure Territorians are not left unprotected should the federal government proceed with its proposed changes. I believe that sections 18C and 18D of the federal law provide a good model for what could apply in the Northern Territory.
I have been genuine in my hope that we can achieve bipartisan support on this matter. That is why I issued a discussion paper on the proposed amendments and consulted Territorians to hear their views directly.
I am thankful to organisations across the Territory that provided feedback, and I am grateful for their support for bringing this bill to parliament today. In the consultation I asked six broad questions:
1. Do you support a proposal for an amendment to the Northern Territory’s Anti-Discrimination Act to make it unlawful to incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, a person or groups on the grounds of race?
2. How should racial vilification be defined?
3. Are fair comments said or done reasonably and in good faith appropriate exemptions to racial vilification?
4. Should religious vilification be specifically banned or should a definition be included as ‘ethno-religious’?
5. Should sanctions be civil, criminal, or both?
6. How should a complaint be dealt with?
I thank Territorians who provided feedback on my discussion paper and the many stakeholder groups which have given advice on the drafting of this bill. Through the consultation phase, it became clear there is strong support to make this amendment to the Territory’s Anti-Discrimination Act. Territorians clearly believe it is important to legislate against racial hate speech.
Defining racial vilification has been based on existing definitions at the Commonwealth level and in Tasmania. This will enable the Territory to benefit from, and contribute to, the development of jurisprudence concerning the provision.
From the consultation it is clear there is support for an appropriate balance between basic human rights and freedom of expression. In relation to ethno-religious discrimination, ethnic groups with religious ties, including Jews and Sikhs, were first recognised in law in 1994, in an amendment to the United Kingdom anti-discrimination act.
In other Australian jurisdictions, such as New South Wales, the relevant anti-discrimination act defines race to include ethnic, ethno-religious or national origin.
In contrast, the Territory act defines race to include the nationality, ethnic or national origin, colour, descent or ancestry of a person, and that a person is or has been an immigrant.
Queensland, Victoria and Tasmania outlaw both racial and religious vilification. Accordingly, I believe it is important the bill clarifies that protection against hate speech applies to racial and ethno-religious people and groups.
Criminal sanctions already exist for serious forms of threat and harassment, so the bill has proceeded on the basis of a civil sanction, with complaints being dealt with through the complaint handling function of the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner. This will allow for conciliation in appropriate cases, and litigation where matters cannot be adequately resolved.
The Australian Human Rights Commission defines racial discrimination as when a person is treated less favourably than another person in a similar situation because of their race, colour, descent, national or ethnic origin, or immigrant status. The commission describes racial vilification, sometimes referred to as racial hatred, as doing something in public based on the race, colour, national or ethnic origin of a person or group of people which is likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate.
Examples of racial hatred may include
racially offensive material on the Internet, including e-forums, blogs, social networking sites and video sharing sites
racially offensive comments or images in a newspaper, magazine or other publication, such as a leaflet or flyer
racially offensive speeches at a public rally
racially abusive comments in a public place such as a shop, workplace, park, on public transport or at school
I hope I can say all of us in this parliament reject these actions outright. There is no place in our society for racism. There is no place in our society for racial discrimination. There is no place in our society for racial vilification. Our Territory community, like the rest of Australia, has come a long way on a journey opposing racism.
Commenting on the original Northern Territory Anti-Discrimination Bill, on 1 October 1992, the then Chief Minister, Shane Stone, introduced the Anti-Discrimination Bill. He said:
- The bill that I have introduced reflects the view of the community that discrimination is not acceptable in our society. The Northern Territory Anti-Discrimination Bill ensures that Territorians will have the support of anti-discrimination legislation designed by Territorians, for Territorians, to fit the special needs of Territorians. The bill will also serve 2 main purposes. The first is to provide a code of conduct to support Territorians in their efforts to give others a fair go and to provide redress for those with a genuine complaint of discrimination. The second is to provide an educational process for people in the Territory to ensure that everyone understands their responsibilities in ensuring non-discriminatory behaviour.
Labor welcomed the intent of the bill and Syd Stirling said it was:
- … a clear and definitive statement of a principle that I am sure we all adhere to – that is, that this Assembly is no longer prepared to tolerate discrimination in our society. The strength of this legislation lies not in what it contains but in an acknowledgement by this parliament that discrimination can be overcome in the longer term only through education and the gradual change of attitudes as a result of that educational process.
The only member to speak about racial vilification was the then member for Wanguri, John Bailey, who said:
- Racial vilification or vilification of any group should not be a right. People should not have the right to incite hatred or violence towards any group of people.’
In the debate on my GBD motion, the Leader of Government Business raised concerns about the importance of free speech and how it intersects with anti-discrimination legislation. I am sure we all agree that free speech is something important to us all. It is something we Territorians treasure. We know we are able to speak our minds, but we also expect others to treat us as we would expect to be treated ourselves. It is not a simple matter of either or.
The Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act already contains strong protection of free speech. Section 18D provides a very broad exemption from liability for ‘reasonable’ and ‘good faith’ artistic expression, academic work, debate or public commentary. The Australian Human Rights Commission also describes some things that are not against the law, provided they are ‘done reasonably and in good faith’, even if they are done in public.
Under federal law, the things that are not against the law if they are ‘done reasonably and in good faith’ are:
an artistic work or performance – for example, a play in which racially offensive attitudes are expressed by a character
a statement, publication, discussion or debate made for genuine academic or scientific purposes – for example, discussing and debating public policy such as immigration, multiculturalism or special measures for particular groups
making a fair and accurate report on a matter of public interest – for example, a fair report in a newspaper about racially offensive conduct
making a fair comment if the comment is an expression of a person’s genuine belief.
Section 18D contains exemptions which protect freedom of speech. These ensure that artistic works, scientific debate and fair comments on matters of public interest are exempt from section 18C, providing they are said or done reasonably and in good faith.
The bill reflects the measures contained within section 18D to provide a broad exemption from liability for ‘reasonable’ and ‘good faith’ artistic expression, academic work, debate or public commentary.
I was heartened by the comments of the Leader of Government Business when he spoke in this place on 14 May this year, when I moved a General Business motion about the importance of having adequate protections in the Territory against racial vilification. In that debate, I said bipartisan support is crucial on this matter, since it is something which affects us all.
The Assembly came together and the motion agreed to read as follows:
- That this Assembly:
understands the importance of the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act 1975, and the Northern Territory’s Anti-Discrimination Act
recognises that while section 18C of the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act 1975 provides some protection to individuals from offensive behaviour because of race, colour, national or ethnic origin, the Commonwealth Attorney-General has released a discussion paper to elicit community views
recognises the harmonious and respectful multicultural makeup of the Northern Territory which is robust and unique in Australia
monitors the Commonwealth plans to remove existing vilification protections with interest and reserves its right to augment the Northern Territory legislation in the event that this is necessary to cover any legislative shortfall
notes that the Leader of the Opposition has released a discussion paper and has indicated that she will bring forward a private members’ bill to provide protection for Territorians following the federal government’s move to repeal section 18C of the federal Racial Discrimination Act.
The Leader of Government Business and the Minister for Multicultural Affairs both suggested there was not much evidence of racial vilification in the Territory. I agree we all want to see zero racial vilification, but there have been at least six cases brought before the Human Rights Commission concerning racial vilification in this jurisdiction.
Without protections against racial hatred, there may have been more reportable incidents, and none would have been dealt with by the commission. Those Territorians would have been vilified and, collectively, the message sent to those who would incite racial hatred is it is okay.
As I said in the debate on my GBD motion, in the Territory we are so lucky to live in a wonderfully cultural landscape full of rich history and meaning. The depth of that cultural Indigenous history is incredible. We are so lucky to call this country of ours home.
I call myself a saltwater person. I was born and raised in Darwin, but then there is the rock country in West Arnhem, the open woodlands across the big rivers, the open plains of the Barkly and, of course, the desert of Central Australia. We are all witness to Indigenous Territorians who can claim, quite rightly and proudly, to have the oldest continuous living culture on our planet.
Our Territory is home to the descendants of the first settlers, when we were part of the colony of South Australia. In 1869, George Goyder, Surveyor-General of SA, established a small settlement of 135 people at Port Darwin, and named the settlement Palmerston. In 1870 the first poles for the overland telegraph were erected in Darwin to eventually open the Territory, and Australia, to the rest of the world.
Our Territory has been home to people from across the continents and nations of the world who have decided to settle here since then. For example, the Chinese population at one time outnumbered the European population in the Top End. Many were recruited to the government of the day, and by 1878 the Chinese were the largest non-Indigenous group in the Northern Territory.
According to the government resident’s report of 1909, there were 6122 Chinese in the NT, and 1888 were contracted to work in the goldfields, and later built the railway line from Palmerston to Pine Creek. Over a century ago, in the late 1890s, Chinatown in Cavenagh Street had become a hive of Chinese activity and commerce.
The Census of 1921 showed there were seven Cypriots living in Darwin. They were employed at Vesty’s Meatworks and the Pine Creek Railway. Following the political stability after World War II, some Cypriots headed to Australia, so by 1952, Greek Cypriots were the largest group of Greek Australians in Darwin.
Following Cyclone Tracy, I saw us welcome many people from Greece to our city, and by 1982 Darwin City Council had signed a sister city agreement with Kalymnos in recognition of the growing links between our two communities.
We all celebrate a great Territory lifestyle. It is what makes our Territory what it is, and is why we call our multicultural dynamic home. This was why Darwin was named one of the best cities to visit in 2012 by Lonely Planet, where we were described as ‘multicultural, young and energetic’, which is a great selling point for tourism.
Tourism Top End describes Darwin as:
- … a melting pot of people and cultures that prides itself in its unique and friendly laid back lifestyle.
Our multicultural Territory is growing and it is right that our anti-discrimination legislation is modernised to ensure that no one is subjected to racial hate speech.
On 25 March this year, the Commonwealth Attorney-General, Senator Hon George Brandis, released an exposure draft bill on proposed amendments to the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act 1975. Section 18C was introduced as an amendment to the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 in 1994-95 after several reports and long consultation. It was introduced in partial fulfilment of Australia’s obligations under the convention for the elimination of racial discrimination which obliges states to take action on racial hate speech.
Section 18C renders unlawful conduct which is likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate people on the basis of their race. This is a civil prohibition only. Section 18C does not create an offence or a crime. No one can be charged or prosecuted and no criminal punishments can be imposed on those who breach it. Law suits under section 18C are brought privately by victims, not by the government. Section 18C applies an objective test: the court must consider whether the relevant conduct is likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate an ordinary and reasonable member of a racial group. It is not enough that a given person subjectively feels offended; hurt feelings are not enough. It is expected that an ordinary and reasonable member of a racial group has some tolerance for the views of others.
The proposed draft amendments include inserting a new section into the Racial Discrimination Act, which would remove the first three terms ‘offend’, ‘insult’ and ‘humiliate’, and narrow the definition of intimidate to ‘fear of physical harm’. It will also add the word ‘vilify’, but define it to mean ‘the incitement of third parties to hatred’.
The federal government’s proposed amendments were roundly criticised around the country. The Australian Human Rights Commission’s submission to the Attorney-General’s department about the proposals recommends the exposure bill, as drafted, should not proceed.
The commission has identified key areas of concern with the proposed exposure draft, including:
- A narrow definition of vilification, which excludes conduct that is degrading; and limited definition of intimidation, which excludes conduct causing emotional or psychological harm;
The Commission is concerned by the breadth of the exemption in subsection (4) of the Draft Bill. This provision is so broad it is difficult to see any circumstances in public to which the protections would apply. Of particular significance is the removal of the requirement that acts be done reasonably and in good faith. The Commission considers that, at the very least, a requirement of good faith should be included. This would prevent racist abuse offered up in the course of public discussion being permitted.
The Australian Council of Human Rights Authorities, of which the Northern Territory’s Anti-Discrimination Commissioner is a member, has submitted that:
- It is our view that the draft Bill should not proceed in its current form.
The council has found that:
- The proposed changes to the RDA will:
remove the existing protections available to a person or group of persons who are offended, insulted or humiliated on the basis of their race, colour or national or ethnic origin;
narrow the interpretation of ‘intimidation’ to that which causes a fear of physical harm;
remove the requirement to establish the impact of the actions against the standard of a reasonable representative of the race, colour, national or ethnic origin of the complainant and substitute that with the requirement to establish the impact of the action from the perspective of an ordinary reasonable member of the Australian community;
remove the responsibility of employers or agents who may have vicarious liability for the action under consideration; and
broaden the scope of the available exceptions to include a wider range of activities and remove the requirement that actions falling within the range of available exceptions be exercised cautiously and in the least discriminatory manner possible.
- ‘If we are to close the unacceptable health and life expectancy gap between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and other Australians, racism must be addressed. The RDA in its current form has a critical role to play ...
Other organisations, including the Australia Hellenic Council of New South Wales, are gravely concerned about the federal government’s proposed watering down of the racial vilification provisions in the Racial Discrimination Act. The Federation of Ethnic Communities’ Councils of Australia has warned the government the change would leave Australians with no protection against racial vilification, and the Chinese Australian Forum said it is an immoral move that will encourage racism.
I will now read an excerpt from an open letter signed by 155 organisations that Australia must retain strong and effective protections against racial vilification. The organisations include national bodies which include Territory organisations such as Larrakia Nation, corporations, non-government organisations, faith groups, legal services, and many other groups. The open letter said:
- Racial hatred causes serious harm to individuals and diminishes us all as a community. It increases the likelihood of racial discrimination and racist violence.
Unfortunately racism remains widespread in the Australian community. Racial vilification complaints to the Australian Human Rights Commission increased 59 per cent last year. According to the Challenging Racism Project, approximately 20 per cent of Australians have experienced forms of race hate
- …
The Australian Government should demonstrate its commitment to the diverse cultural, ethnic, and religious communities that make up the rich fabric of our multicultural nation by ruling out any repeal of the racial vilification provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act.
The objects of the Anti-Discrimination Act include the promotion, recognition and acceptance within the community of the principle of the right to equality of opportunity, of persons regardless of an attribute, and the elimination of discrimination against persons on the grounds of race, sex, sexuality, age, marital status, pregnancy, parenthood, breastfeeding, impairment, trade union or employer association, religious belief or activity, political opinion, affiliation or activity, irrelevant medical record or irrelevant criminal record in the area of work, accommodation or education or in the provision of goods, services and facilities, in the activities of clubs, or in insurance and superannuation.
The objects remain valid. My bill extends those objects by prohibiting behaviour which is reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or group of persons because of their race or religious belief or activity, subject to relevant exemptions.
While I welcome the recent comments from the Prime Minister that he has abandoned plans to repeal section 18C of the federal Racial Discrimination Act, I am concerned there are some crossbench members of the federal parliament who have indicated they intend to bring forward a private members’ bill to repeal section 18C. Accordingly, the objective of my bill to ensure Territorians are protected from racial and religious vilification remains valid.
I now turn to specific clauses in the bill. Clause 3 amends section 4 to insert a definition of ‘racially or religiously offensive’.
Clause 4 inserts a new section 22A concerning racially or religiously offensive behaviour. It is modelled on Commonwealth and Tasmanian anti-vilification measures. The clause prohibits behaviour which is reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimate another person or group of person because of their race or religious belief or activity.
Section 22A(1) applies the new section to public acts in any area of activity and not limited to the six areas mentioned in section 28 of the act – namely education, work, accommodation, goods and services and facilities, clubs, insurance and superannuation.
Section 22A(3) sets out a number of exemptions modelled on section 18D of the Commonwealth act if the behaviour is done in good faith and reasonably, along with being for academic, artistic, scientific, or research purposes, or for making or disseminating a fair and accurate report of an event or matter of public interest, or a fair comment on an event of public interest that is an expression of genuine belief, or for a purposes that is in the public interest. The act must be public and is defined in section 22A(3). The subsection also covers bullying on the Internet.
It is intended that the new provision cover all activities across the Territory. Section 51 currently exempts religious bodies from the prohibition on racially or religiously offensive conduct if the conduct was ‘as part of any religious observance or practice’.
Clause 5 clarifies that the prohibited grounds of discrimination provisions in Part 3 Division 1 of the act continue to not apply in relation to religious bodies. This means the prohibited conduct provisions in proposed section 22A would apply.
This bill is the culmination of a lengthy process of consultation with the public. This has been achieved by means of a discussion paper and consultation during the drafting process. The amendments represent a great improvement to the Territory’s Anti-Discrimination Act.
It is unfortunate the amendments were trigged by plans at the federal level to remove such protections. The Territory is the only jurisdiction which does not have anti-vilification provisions in legislation. Therefore, it is timely this private members’ bill be supported by the Assembly to provide protection for Territorians against racial vilification.
My team and I recognise that Territorians celebrate a great Territory lifestyle. It is what makes our Territory what it is, and is why we call our multicultural Territory home. There is no place for racial discrimination in today’s society, and this bill enshrines that principle in law to ensure Territorians are protected from racial and religious vilification.
I thank the Office of Parliamentary Counsel for its assistance in drafting this bill. I thank my adviser, David Halliday, for his tireless efforts and work in the discussion paper and the efforts in drafting this bill. I thank the many Territorians who provided feedback on my discussion paper and the many stakeholder groups which have given advice on the drafting of this bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Development of the Litchfield Area
Development of the Litchfield Area
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that:
the government reaffirms its support for the development of the Litchfield area as a predominately rural community – that is, villages or district centres interspersed with rural blocks not less than 1 ha, as highlighted in the Litchfield Land Use Objectives
the minimum lot size for Rural Residential remains as 1 ha and not 0.4 ha as being promoted by the developers and the Planning Commission, and that blocks smaller than 1 ha be located within villages or district centres
the government does not go ahead with its plan to develop Holtze Howard Springs in the suburb of Palmerston North (9500 blocks) but rather develops the area as rural with the smallest rural lot size being 1 ha except within a village or district centre
the government supports the development of the Howard Springs forestry land into a rural subdivision, not an activity centre as shown on the Planning Commission’s draft plans
ribbon development included in proposed activity centres along the Stuart and Arnhem Highways, as shown in the Planning Commission’s draft plans, be replaced with predominantly rural residential or rural living development, with commercial and industrial land centralised in district centres
the notion of peri urban and urban development in the Lloyd Creek, Noonamah and Hughes localities is scrapped and the area is developed in keeping with the concept of small villages, not cities as such as proposed for Hughes, interspersed with rural lot sizes above 1 ha as in the Litchfield Land Use Objectives. Lloyd Creek, Noonamah and Hughes should not be used to avoid the government’s responsibility to build Weddell
the government keep its promise it announced before the last election to develop Weddell as the next major urban centre for the Darwin region without an Elizabeth River dam or lake.
This is a fairly limited debate, to some extent, for some people, because they do not live in the rural area. I should explain to people that after Darwin, Palmerston and Alice Springs, the next largest centre is Litchfield, with over 20 000 people. This area developed after or around Cyclone Tracy and has continued since. In many cases, people moved to the rural area to get away from the bureaucracy. That was no more reflected than in the original plans for the Litchfield Shire Council, which will basically be a flat, low-rate, minimum legislation. Up to recent times, that is how it occurred.
What I am putting forward is the CLP’s own policy. It might seem strange. This document here – it is a bit worn out because I use it quite a bit – is called the Litchfield Planning Concepts and Land Use Objectives. In this version is the ex-minister for Planning, Mr Kon Vatskalis’, picture, but if I was to give you the one published just before the election of that year, it would have Mr Tim Baldwin’s picture. This document is nearly word for word, exactly what the CLP put out, and I have always supported it.
Today, I am repeating what you people said should happen to the Litchfield Shire – no more, no less. There are a few issues that need upgrading, and I would be the first to say this document probably needs a revision.
The amazing thing is I have not heard anyone in government mention this document, which is a legal document under the Planning Act. If fact, if you look up the website for Lands, Planning and the Environment, this is one of the documents you should take into consideration.
This motion is not about anti-development. I support the minister saying we need more land. However, there are two kinds of land – rural land and urban land. Rural land is what was designed for the Litchfield area, and urban land was what was designed for Palmerston and Weddell.
I will read a couple of things out of the Litchfield Land Use Objectives so people understand where I come from when I get a little passionate about this. For instance, on page 6 it says:
- The concepts for future residential development in Litchfield Shire accommodate future population growth, maintain minimum lot sizes within existing subdivisions in established rural living areas and create opportunities to cater for various aspirations in relation to the rural lifestyle. The concepts incorporate:
- continuation of 2 ha subdivision predominantly for residential purposes generally in the Howard Springs, Bees Creek and Humpty Doo locality;
provision for future rural residential subdivision of lots less than 2 ha in specific localities …
The one thing that has changed here that was moved by the government at that time was to say the minimum lot size is 1 ha. Anything under that is not regarded as rural:
- the creation of opportunities for alternative rural living lifestyles; and
further provision of urban sized lots within appropriately serviced district centres.
Also, under the heading on page 7:
- To minimise impacts on the amenity of existing rural living areas or the environment of rural residential development on lots less than 2 ha.
It said:
- This can be achieved by:
…
- adopting an absolute minimum lot size of 0.4 ha with an average lot size for each individual development of 1 ha;
What changed there was ‘absolute minimum lot size is 1 ha’, not an average of 1 ha.
That is a document we have been using since 2002. As I said, it should be looked at to be revised, to see if it is still up to date and relates to the present. We have had a series of documents since then. First we had the Labor Party’s rural village plans. I do not have a copy of that with me, but it was very similar to the CLP’s village plans. You would be pushing to see a great difference, except there were some changes of development along the Arnhem Highway and the Stuart Highway.
Then came this document called the Rural Centre Plan, which was issued by the members for Goyder and Nelson. It gave an alternative point of view to what the Labor Party was trying to introduce and its reasons. These were the differences between what the Labor Party was trying to do at that time and what the members for Goyder and Nelson had released.
‘The main difference between these alternative plans and the government plans are listed below:
‘The rural lifestyle is shown as a legitimate lifestyle, as opposed to living in the suburbs of Darwin, Palmerston or the future city of Weddell. Rural living is protected.
‘A rural centre is a small community serving the rural area, not a suburb. Each rural centre has a clear boundary separating rural development from urban development.
‘A new zone is to be created called Large Urban – LU – 0.4 ha or 1 acre, and only permitted within rural centres.
‘The minimum rural lot size in Litchfield remains as 1 ha or 2.5 acres, and that is called Rural Residential. It can be RRR, which means restricted clearing and not 0.4 ha or 1 acre, as proposed by the government.
‘Where lot sizes are small outside of rural areas such as on Fellows Road, Stowe Road or parts of Whitewood Park in Howard Springs, they are not used as a precedence but recognised as an exception rather than the rule.
‘These rural centre plans are based on a principle of good planning rather than vested interest. ‘
That was the document Madam Speaker and I released. It was a good attempt – not perfect. We had to do it with limited resources in a very short time as an option to develop the rural area.
Then we had the CLP’s plan, which was a glossy brochure; it was more than a brochure, it was a book. It came out about eight months before the election. I praised the CLP for bringing out that document, much of which was very similar to the 1990 document, but at least it had a lot more information than what Labor had released.
This plan was called Regional Land Use Plans, and in it, it showed exactly what I am supporting today – that there would be a rural area, no Palmerston north, and there would be a Weddell – lake or no lake. They had two maps in this document. This was put out as part of their policy for the last election. What has happened to this? Did it die a happy death? Was it not convenient? Were there people knocking on the government’s doors saying, ‘Look at me, I can do you a better deal’? I do not know, but that is what happened.
Then we had the election. In December last year, the Planning Commission put out this option about developing the Darwin region. You have to remember that most of this map is Litchfield. There is some development in Palmerston and some in Darwin. I am not here tonight to go through the Darwin issues, but there are certain issues. This map was an A4 sheet, which had a back on it which explained what was in it, and people were asked to comment. It disappointed me that in this whole discussion there were no public forums or information days. It was something for you to work your way through.
I had four public meetings trying to describe what this document is, and I showed a PowerPoint presentation. I only have the black and white which showed when submissions were closing on 10 March. This was not a biased document; I tried to explain what the Planning Commission was attempting to do. I was not trying to be political in this case. I said, ‘You people coming to the meeting have to decide what you want’, because this was what was in it. That was a failing of the Planning Commission in developing that area and this option.
Before the next draft came out the government decided to put this magic plan out. You must remember this is one of the problems I have. We have the Northern Territory Planning Commission saying, ‘We are independent, we are working out the future of Darwin’, and the minister and the Chief Minister were on TV with this beautiful photograph, which I asked the ABC to give me, which showed all of Holtze and Howard Springs as a suburb.
Could I get a copy of that? ‘Oh, no, it is not going to look like that’. It is because the latest draft plan says there will be 9500 blocks. That is in the new Planning Commission’s plans. You will not fit 9500 blocks unless they are little blocks and cover that entire area.
However, the people were not being told. What is confusing is why the Chief Minister and the minister for Planning did not make this statement before the Northern Territory Planning Commission had put out its final draft. Would it have anything to do with the by-election? It might have had something to do with the by-election. They had to have a good news story. No one was going to vote for you in the rural area so you were safe. This was a good news story around the time of an election. Otherwise I might have been able to get a copy of this without having to go around corners to get it.
We now have the new draft of the Darwin regional plan, which is a fairly substantial document. Someone told me it is an improved document. I will not say who said that. No, it is not an improved document. They have just increased the density of housing and the amount of peri urban – I love that name, peri urban, periwinkle, Perry Mason …
Mr Chandler: It is improved.
Mr WOOD: Improved? An extra 3500 blocks of land have turned up down on Redcliffe Road, and the statement said 9500 blocks in Holtze Howard Springs, when the minister originally said 1500. In fact, he said 1500 last night. If he thinks he will put 1500 or 1600 dwellings around the hospital site – 1500 is 6000 people, a fifth of the present size of Palmerston. That is not a district centre, that is a suburb.
You have documents that have not taken into consideration the rural point of view. We support – I say ‘we’ as 1054 people signed two petitions, one at the show and one outside the front of my shop. I did not go any further. I could have gone to Humpty Doo. I hope you enjoyed the beautiful photography on the front of those postcards ...
Mr Chandler: It was from my address.
Mr WOOD: Yes, someone must love you very much. I do not know how that happened. Yes, many postcards were sent out. It was a nice way, minister, of raising a point.
I did not burn down Parliament House or throw rocks at anyone. I tried to put proposals that you would hopefully listen to – a reasonable approach to the development in the rural area that would fit in with exactly what you are after: an expansion of land to make it more affordable.
What also worries me is that at the same time as all this was happening there was another issue at the Hughes Airstrip. The minister would have seen this document, I am sure. This document is called the Development Proposal for Hughes and Noonamah District Centres, including the Hughes Heritage Village. The member for Goyder and I raised the issue of the Hughes development in our plan, where we said, ‘A possible new rural centre is being investigated near Hughes World War II Airstrip. This is being promoted by a local private development. It may have merit, but the concept of a rural village and rural development around the village should be the basis for any future planning.’
In other words it should keep in line with the land use objectives. The plan says in the Hughes District Centre there will be 45 2 ha lots, 540 0.4 ha blocks – straightaway you are under the minimum lot size – 4240 800 m2 blocks – that is roughly 1900 people. For Noonamah, you are looking at 30 2 ha blocks, 700 0.4 ha blocks, and 1840 800 m2 blocks. If you add them together, you get about 7300. That is a population – if there were four people per house – of nearly 30 000 people. That is nothing like what the land use objectives stated. It expected this land will be developed into 8 ha blocks so there was a range of sizes.
Then, lo and behold, I did not know this until recently. I had heard whispers, but what got me going is the Development Consent Authority put this nice section of land down Redcliffe Road as peri urban and urban. How un-rural can you get with a name like that? Give me a break! It is planning jargon, and non-friendly to any normal person.
What did I find out? I found out there is a big proposal to develop that land. Guess what? I have raised this issue before. I asked the minister if any companies from south, any Sydney companies, would come to the Northern Territory and develop the land. ‘Oh, no’. The minister might be right but I know of one large block not far from me where the person has been approached by a large company which wants to chop that rural block up into little blocks.
There is a large block of land there which is being developed by a company called Intratech. That company is from Sydney, and its job is to develop land. This is the bit I love. You know when it is a southern real estate or developer company because it changes the name. The name of the land on the west side of Redcliffe Road is Lloyd Creek. But not anymore! It is Noonamah Ridge. Doesn’t that smell like – what were those places …
Mr Barrett: Vegemite.
Mr WOOD: No, better than Vegemite. It sounds like the new estates in Palmerston. They were heights, or lows, or flats, or ponds or something. They never had their real names.
This company develops suburbs – if you can call them that – in Sydney, and it wants to get in here and turn this into 3500 lots. I do not have anything against the land being developed, but it wants 3500 lots where I worked out you could have about 2000 1 ha blocks, which is pretty small, and you are probably not going to have 1 ha because of town water.
There must be something that is jamming all these people in here. So there is another district centre. But it is not a district centre normally, it is another city. It is not that we are against development, it is the size of the development.
This concepts and planning land use objectives are what you, as a CLP government, said was how the rural area should be developed. You have gone away from that without any mandate from anyone. You have just said, ‘We need more land’. Hang on, your plan said you would build Weddell. So what do the minister and the Chief Minister say? ‘Oh, there is no work being done on that.’
Here are some documents that should be publicised. There was the Weddell Design Forum. Many people, local and interstate, put a lot of work into looking at what Weddell should look like. Out of that document, plus a lot of groundwork, came this document, Notice of Intent, Proposed City of Weddell, Northern Territory Department of Lands and Planning. The date on that is 28 June 2011.
It is interesting looking at this document because a range of things are discussed: where the city should be developed; native title; existing land use; road network; mining tenure; power, sewerage; railway; telecommunications; and gas and oil lines. It said, ‘Description of proposed development: the Department of Lands and Planning proposes that this NOI …
Notice of intent. Sorry, I am not good with acronyms:
‘… is an environmental assessment of the entire proposed development area for urban mixed use development.
‘5.1 Timing of proposed development: The time horizon for the development of this area is likely to be in excess of 30 years, and there is uncertainty in determining at this stage how the development may progress into the future. The master planning of the city commenced in 2010, and the first development lot is scheduled to be available in 2014. Weddell has a population target of 50 000 within 30 to 50 years, dependant on population growth in the greater Darwin and Palmerston regions. ‘
It then has a number of scenarios. It talks about proposed land uses.
I am not saying you could build a city tomorrow just using this document, you obviously could not. But when you go through the back of this document, you will see they have done considerable work on the design of the town. They were going to develop it slowly, which is a natural way to develop it.
You are not asking for it to be built in the middle of the Tanami Desert, you are asking someone to build where there is infrastructure. It is not all over the place, but there is a major pipeline down Jenkins Road, the Darwin River Dam, the Weddell Power Station and access over the Elizabeth River Bridge if you cannot build the alternative bridge, which is through Virginia.
Please do not say there were not any plans for Weddell. There were plans for it. It seems there are people who may or may not have approached the government. If you read about the development on Redcliffe Road, you will see that it is now called – the minister would probably know better than me. ‘… a significant development proposal lodged with the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment under section 58 of the Planning Act, and a Notice of Intent lodged with the Northern Territory Environment Protection Area’.
I am not sure this says that has been done, so I am not saying it has been done. It could be their intent to do that.
I have a concern about significant development proposals only being given to the minister to approve. That was a clause the CLP government inserted when it revised the Planning Act. It takes away the power to make a decision over such a development from the independent Development Consent Authority.
I am a little suspicious. You have a number of large landowners – bless their hearts, I know them all. You also have a plan to build Weddell. The latest draft plan from the Planning Commission, talking about the area I am talking about, quotes a figure of 45 000. There is an interesting point here. This is a heading under the Planning Commission’s document. I said Lloyd Creek is now Noonamah Ridge. Noonamah Ridge is a name created by this new company from Sydney. The document from the Planning Commission says:
- Hughes, Noonamah and Noonamah Ridge.
- Private owners of land next to or relatively near the Stuart Highway, generally south and east of Noonamah, propose to develop residential lots in a range of sizes and styles including urban and peri-urban …
Oh, I shake in my boots!
- … rural residential and rural lifestyle lots at Noonamah and Hughes and ‘Noonamah Ridge’ …
Noonamah Ridge is now in inverted commas:
- Initial proposal suggests a total of some 13 500 lots may be developed in stages, eventually accommodating up to 45 000 residents.
Guess what? Weddell is expected to be around 50 000. Has the government said it does not want any responsibility for Weddell, even though it promised it in its plans? It is in your plans and in the land use objectives. I always see the responsibility of building a new city, or at least planning a new city, as the responsibility of a government because that is its role. It is not necessarily the role of the government to build it, but to plan it, because it does things on behalf of the community.
I see the government being given an option to get out of spending money on Weddell, with plans to do a pseudo-Weddell in Noonamah, Hughes and Lloyd Creek. The problem I have with that is it stuffs up the plan and ruins the rural area. It will not be the rural area anymore with that sort of population.
The other thing that worries me is you will get a plan – you might get nice subdivisions, do not get me wrong – but will you get a vision which you would get with a city? I weep now when I come into Darwin. Darwin had opportunities and I put the blame, to some extent, back on the other government. It had designs and meetings. It tried to come up with plans for high-rise development in Darwin. I do not know what happened to them, but when you go along Woods Street and come up Tiger Brennan Drive, you see the great wall of flats. I am afraid that has ruined Darwin city. It should have been space, especially on the ground, interconnected with cafs, walkthroughs and parks. What we have, unfortunately, is wall-to-wall blocks of flats. They are not New York mansions, we are just looking at blocks of flats, which is so sad.
I am not knocking Palmerston, but the reality is the CBD was a disaster. There are some nice buildings in there, do not get me wrong. I used to drive from Daly River and see a water tower go up in the bush. What is that for? Next time I saw Highway House – there was no one out there. That was the first building that went up there, then the suburbs and at the same Coles. La Piras built the shopping centre there and it developed. However, the concept of linking a series of four roundabouts with the CBD in the middle, which I thought would happen, resulted in the Oasis shopping centre being on the other side. That was because certain people owned some land, got it rezoned and it ended up being there, which was a poor decision.
Then you have the basketball court. I am not against basketball courts, but right in the middle of the CBD did not seem right. I know there were reasons, but that should have been down with the other recreation facilities such as the pool, netball courts and tennis courts. The CLP might say the previous government did not do much, but those facilities in Driver for netball and tennis are terrific. They are really great ...
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to standing Order 77, I request an extension of time for the member.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: All I am saying is Palmerston CBD could have been developed much better. There was a chance to make a nice city, and we ended up with Bunnings there. What is Bunnings doing in the middle of your CBD? Over the road is the industrial and commercial area. Do not look at me. It might move yet because I gather there are plans to build a new Bunnings.
I want the government to build Weddell so we can have a city we are proud of. We can start from scratch and build a beautiful city.
People might knock Canberra, but have you ever stood at the War Memorial and looked down on the old Parliament House and across to the new one? That is a beautiful vista. Why can we not do things that way? I showed pictures to people when I was in Northern Ireland and looked at the Parliament of Northern Ireland at Stormont. It sits on a hill and there is a huge avenue that goes up about 2 km. It is magnificent, like someone had a vision.
The vision we have today is, ‘I could put another 50 houses there’. When you go through Palmerston you think, ‘I cannot believe this’. There are streets that look like something which has come out of an Enid Blyton Noddy book. They cannot put more than two cars in the street, then you get booked if you put your car on the verge. I cannot believe it. The councils approve these roads. Someone who was doing landscape work said to me the other day, ‘The developers convinced the government there should be small, narrow roads in those cul-de-sacs so they could create an extra 12 blocks’. It was not about the people who would live there, it was about how much more money they could make through smaller roads. Give me a break! I once saw a plan for public open space which took into account the nature strip!
We could establish a great city with Weddell. You do not have to have the lake. You have not said anything about the lake, minister, for a long time, but the Planning Commission has a whole page about why we should have it. I understand why people might think it would be great. I do not have a problem with cities being on a lake, but this lake could destroy an entire river. That is my problem.
People say, ‘What about Lake Burley Griffin?’ Lake Burley Griffin is way upstream, it is not at the mouth of the river. This is at the mouth of the river; that is the problem. You could probably have a dam upstream and it would make very little difference. However, this one is at a very important part of the river which, if dammed or wiered, will destroy it, to the detriment of Darwin Harbour.
I have tried hard to convince the government. I sometimes wonder whether I have to bring another rally to Parliament House again. I put out these documents and, unfortunately, in trying to do this, be in parliament, and get these out in time for people to comment on the new draft regional plans the Planning Commission has issued, it takes a lot of time. It is difficult sometimes for people to understand.
I hope you like the cards we sent out. They say: ‘Dear Minister, as a rural resident … ‘ – we want to make sure everything is honest, minister. People were able to cross out ‘rural’ and put ‘as a Territory resident’ – ‘… I strongly oppose plans by your government to develop part of Howard Springs into a suburb called Palmerston north. I support rural development with a minimum lot size of 1 ha, 2.5 acres. I also support the concept of smaller blocks in district centres. Holtze Howard Springs should be developed as a rural subdivision and any suburban development should be in a district centre or in Weddell or Murrumujuk …’ – which is one of your options – ‘… as your government promised. Please leave the rural area rural. It is our choice, it is our children’s future, it is our lifestyle. Do not mess with it!’
If you want people and children to grow up well, give them space, fresh air and opportunities to do things a bit different. There is nothing wrong with suburbs, but I found out by living in the rural area for 30 years that it is a great place to bring up a family. How much crime do you find in the rural area? You might get a few silly people trying to grow their funny weed, but generally speaking rural children grow up with an advantage over suburban children. They can have some chooks, ride their quad bike around their block – hopefully with a helmet on – they can have a horse and they can enjoy the bush, which many people do.
Many people here see the suburbs as destroying the bush. Here is the chance for some people to have a patch of the bush and enjoy the birds and the wildlife. I go to the Rural Garden Club. Nearly all its members come from the rural area, and they love it. Many of them would like to stay in the rural area.
You could announce one good thing in this discussion about the block of land on the corner of Beaumont and Freds Pass Roads. You could announce that the government will release land it owns in Humpty Doo and put out expressions of interest for a rural retirement village. It should not be a squashed-in one like Tiwi Gardens, which is a bit of a Noddy-style subdivision. A rural subdivision would be great news. I tried to convince the previous government, and it came up with excuses why it could not happen. I do not know the excuses why it could not happen, but that would be a great thing as part of this plan.
Minister, I do not know where you will go with what I am putting forward today. I am putting it in good faith. I am saying, yes, I support the idea of opening up more land, and there is a legitimate need for more rural development. The plans I have seen are not about rural development, and are not preserving what is there. They do not expand and allow it and allowing more kids to have an opportunity.
Holtze Howard Springs is a classic example where the government owns the land. You could open up that land in a mixture of 1 ha and 2 ha blocks. It could have a district centre near the prison and, as you said last night, minister, a district centre at the hospital. I agree with everything you said last night about the hospital having a development such as nursing quarters, doctors quarters and staff quarters around the hospital. That is a great idea and I support that. But then you said 1500 blocks. I thought, ‘How many people do you have in this hospital?’ That killed the whole idea of a district centre. A district centre is not a city or a suburb, it is an area that provides a service for that area so you can retain the rural area and have a place that services it.
I know it is a difficult area for people who may not be interested in this discussion. Planning is never simple. It has taken me – I do not know how many years – since John Maley put me in charge of the Planning Committee on the Litchfield Shire Council from the day I started on that council. It takes a lot of understanding; it wears me out. I do not do it for fun, I do it because I want to see good planning, opportunities for young people in my area and the polocrosse nationals come back again. I do not want to hear, ‘I am sorry we do not have any horses this year because we sold all the land for little blocks’. I want to see the pony club and people displaying their chooks, goats or some of their cattle at the Freds Pass Show.
Taminmin College is a classic example of why we live out there. It has one of the best VET courses. The college looks after horses and cattle, has a great garden, and encourages people to learn how to live in their own environment. Those are the things we will lose, simply because we have big developers, a government policy that has not even been discussed properly – and I am attempting to do that tonight – and something that has never mandated in an election.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the minister can get the best of both worlds. He wants to develop more land and he can do that by developing Weddell and the rural area – two separate things for two separate purposes. The document is here. It is not as though work has not been done. If this government could design Weddell to make it a city that stands out as a tropical city worth living in, that will be a great achievement for your government.
Mr CHANDLER (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Mr Deputy Speaker, from the outset, we on this side of the House, the County Liberals, appreciate good planning. We appreciate we live in interesting times. In fact, at this morning’s discussions with the team, there was a view of whether there was any way we could support this motion, because we support the intent of the motion.
The good planning and what the member for Nelson is putting forward is his vision of rural development …
Mr Wood: No, no, the CLP did these.
Mr CHANDLER: … using a lot of documents and so forth. There was a view of whether there was any way we could support this motion, or an amended motion. The reality is, the government would be hamstrung in supporting the motion as it is at the moment. However, we are very supportive of the intent behind the motion, the concept of rural and urban areas. That is why we have had the Planning Commission working so hard on a number of areas.
The reality is, in government, unlike the freedom of opposition or Independents, we have pressures from everyone, including financial pressures from a growing economy and what that is doing.
I couch my discussion tonight to try to be as clear as I possibly can, but also suggest I have my colleagues on side – and I have also spoken very quickly to the member for Nelson – about how we might improve some of the consultation, the way forward and where we are going to do that development when it comes to a government that wants to develop on the back of need. There will be ongoing pressures in the rural area. I have had many people from the rural area approach me. Constituents of the members for Nelson, Daly and Goyder have approached me directly about development opportunities in their areas.
To say that everybody in the rural area does not want development is not right. There are many people there who want to see change and development, but you have to balance it with the needs of those who do not. That is always the hardest thing when it comes to the area of planning.
I upset many people in this role and it is certainly not my intent. However, I can tell you advice from my own father, who said, ‘Peter, Santa Claus does not make everyone happy all the time’. If Santa Claus is upsetting people, I do not feel so bad.
There is one thing we need to get straight from the outset. Neither the member for Nelson, Gerry Wood, or any single rural resident owns the rural area. There is a lot of area there that is Crown land, which means it is owned by all Territorians. It is up to the elected government to decide how it can benefit most Territorians.
The biggest issues facing Territorians are the cost of living and access to affordable housing, because the Labor Party, in the last 11 years in government, did not release enough land. That made the cost of a piece of dirt unaffordable in the Northern Territory.
The member for Nelson wants to restrict the Holtze area to large rural blocks. On listening to him, I went back to the department – so I actually do listen – and had some work done on the area we were talking about. I asked for the size of blocks the member for Nelson was looking at in the area of Holtze, including the area that is not in our hands yet. It is still Defence land, we are still in negotiations, so that area has never been zoned before for rural living or anything like that. It is not …
Mr Wood: It could not be zoned.
Mr CHANDLER: It could not be zoned because it is Defence land. People have come in to my office and said to me, ‘Gerry Wood told me that area had been zoned rural residential’. It could not be zoned because it is Defence land and is still not in the hands of the Territory government.
Anyway, I had the work done to find out how much it would cost. The results were that to develop the area of Holtze into rural living blocks as presented by the member of Nelson was in the vicinity of around $400 000 a block. You have to wonder how many people can afford $400 000 blocks. If you were going to put that number of blocks onto the market at $400 000, is it affordable? With the crisis we have with affordability it is very easy to make a decision that $400 000 blocks of land are not sustainable. Offering a range of blocks in that area, including rural blocks, will make it more affordable for everyone.
The member for Nelson has often spoken about Weddell. The people I have spoken to about Weddell – you would swear by how successful the previous government was in its marketing campaign they owned Weddell. As the member for Nelson rightly pointed out tonight, Weddell has been on the cards since the 1970s; it has been around for a long time. We will not be walking away from Weddell. Weddell is still part of what will be a future city. There is no backing away from that.
But when you come into government and you inherit the debt and deficit situation the previous government left this government, and on top of that an economy that was spinning along and, because of the lack of land release causing prices to go through the roof, you are left with making some harsh decisions. What do you do? The perfect solution would have been to invest hundreds of millions of dollars into a new city of Weddell, and do everything the member for Nelson is suggesting.
However, if that money is not available, you have to come up with other ways to meet the challenges. There was a lot of thought given to how we progress. This is why we went down the track of nominating over 70 sites across the Territory that were already appropriately zoned, and could be turned off effectively and quickly, because they were close to services, roads and infrastructure. That was a way you could turn off land much more quickly than going into a greenfield site like Weddell.
I will talk about Weddell for a second, because the member for Nelson demonstrated tonight that there was a lot of planning, rhetoric and discussions involved. As a new government coming in, we are not ignoring that information.
There was some fundamental planning done. What was not done was real planning around infrastructure and subdivisions. That kind of work had not been done. In fact, it did not even appear in the budget for the former government. Weddell, for them, was also a bit over the horizon. They will not admit to it; they will say it was tomorrow. But I suggest, looking at the forward estimates the previous government had put forward, it was well over the horizon. It is still there for us.
I put it to you, member for Nelson, that in 2011 the previous government, through a PricewaterhouseCoopers report, estimated the cost of infrastructure for the first 2300 dwellings to be in the order of $180m. That is well over $200m today. If you break that down for those blocks of land, the first blocks of land to be released in Weddell would come at a cost of around $87 000 to the taxpayer. That is before you have any profit margins, developer margins or anything like that – around $87 000 of taxpayers’ money.
Compare that to this government’s approach to Holtze, Berrimah Farm and a number of these sites we have nominated across the Territory. When you break down the money we are putting into that, working with private developers, it will cost the taxpayer around $1900 per block to turn off.
When you do not have the luxury of money – and I heard the member for Nelson before talk about Canberra and well planned cities like that. I agree, Weddell should be a well-planned city like that. However, it takes hundreds of millions of dollars for that to occur. If you appreciate the position this government is in, the responsible position we take is not to just borrow more money, putting Territorians further and further into debt. It is about managing the debt and deficit situation, and working out strategies to release enough land quickly enough so you do not drag Territorians into mortgages of 30 and 40 years to pay off what should be a much cheaper option.
For work we are doing at the moment, particularly in Palmerston, we are building in, for the first time, price points to contracts. Some of the developers do not like this because it is taking blocks of land, even in Palmerston, that are selling for $300 000. I do not understand how a block of land can cost that much. It is what the market is withstanding – because of what? Because there is a market due to the lack of land release.
The price points we are building into these latest blocks are between $160 000 and $180 000. That is a remarkable turnaround from the $300 000 people are paying at the moment. The way to do that is to provide options such as the size of lots. You will always have people who want to live in the rural area on five, 10, 20 or 40 acres and beyond, but, equally, you will always have people who want to live in the city in an apartment or a terrace home which, at the moment, you cannot build in the Northern Territory. Maybe with changes to the Planning Scheme in the future you will have a market for terrace homes. People can get into the market in their very first home and then, at a later stage, move up and, one day, maybe live in a rural area. Providing flexibility within the Planning Scheme is the way to provide choice and marketing opportunities for people which they can afford.
I want to clarify a couple of things. With the excellent marketing the previous Labor government did, you would swear Weddell was their baby. You would swear they built Palmerston, and they have done so many things such as bringing the railway to Darwin. These are the things you would think the former Labor government had done. But there has been a great deal of good planning undertaken over many years by successive governments. My criticism of the former Labor government is they did not release land quickly enough to keep up with the market. The direct result of that was land prices going through the roof and too many Territorians today suffering high mortgages and a high cost of living because of the lack of land release. So we have looked a number of strategies.
The member for Nelson talked about Hughes Noonamah and those types of areas. In a perfect world, you would be using government money to spend on a city like Weddell, and good planning. But if you accept the position there is no money and there is the debt situation we were given, you have to come up with other ideas. So this government has done a number of things. We are working with private developers and entering into arrangements with them to take on subdivisions and large suburbs. We are also improving the processes within government because that is (1) attracting investment and (2) doing what we should be doing in removing red tape and fixing what became, over many years, over-bureaucracy within many of our departments, particularly Planning.
I will move on to the fact we are a pragmatic government. One of the reasons we held off Weddell was because people were hurting, which is critical to understand and appreciate. Even if government did have $500m to throw in and get Weddell started and have land turned off one or two years from now, it still would not have dealt with the immediate concern we have. People are hurting with the cost of living driven on the back of high land, rental and mortgage costs. We have looked at and researched other ways to turn off land quickly, using the assistance of private developers and improving government processes so we can provide some level of ease in the market.
We are already seeing it. Quinten Kilian, in an article in the NT News, said they are finally starting to see signs that the high cost of rentals is easing. That is the first sign in a long time. Given the economy is spinning along extremely well, for us to put enough land release into the market where you will start to finally see a turn is evidence the plans we have implemented are starting to work. Our plan to fast-track existing developments and proceed with Holtze and Berrimah Farm will do exactly that. We will deliver more houses to fix what the Labor government left us with, which is basically a crazy mess.
There are a few things I have been very concerned about recently with some of the approaches by the member for Nelson. I know he probably thinks there is some frustration out there. We are working damn hard to try to find ways to reduce the cost of living. In the areas of planning, will you upset somebody? Yes, absolutely. You will upset many people. But sometimes you have to look at the bigger picture and ways you can solve the problem. There is a problem. We accept that the cost of living in the Northern Territory is bordering on being out of control unless we keep a close eye on it and tackle it the best way we can.
I even admit there have been some planning decisions I have made in the last 12 to 18 months which under perfect conditions I would not have made. But we do not have perfect conditions in the Northern Territory. We have land prices that are out of the reach of so many. If there is anyone in this room who has at least half a heart, you would agree with me in supporting the government in initiatives to reduce the cost of land. If we can do that, we then reduce the cost of housing on the land, which ultimately flows on to somebody’s mortgage, investment or the rents people are paying today. You would be applauding us, not attacking us.
I admit and I appreciate that this government, and I as the minister, can do more to consult with people in the rural area. However, I know how much work has gone into what the Planning Commission does, and we are doing in consultation. There are many developers who do not like to consult, particularly too soon, because of what happens with that information, which spreads like wildfire. If the information is wrong, then you are putting out bushfires all the time. Much of the information recently – even information out of your own office, member for Nelson – has not been correct and has caused angst in the general public.
I ask and plead that if some information is about to come from your office, you make a phone call to me – you have my number – or if you want a briefing on anything, please, this is what we are here for. I want to consult, I want to be inclusive with what you are doing. I particularly want to ensure we are doing the right thing for rural residents ...
Mr Wood: What information went wrong? I would not do that on purpose.
Mr CHANDLER: I am sure you would not do it on purpose. But the problem is sometimes people will hear something has happened then, all of a sudden, it becomes gospel …
Mr Wood: They might have it wrong.
Mr CHANDLER: Whether you like it or not, people in the rural area respect you, member for Nelson, and believe what you say. I have had a number of people come into my office to talk. I will give you an example. The member for Nelson told me – talking about Kowandi – that area was always going to be zoned rural. I had to say it could not have been zoned rural because …
Mr Wood: I would not have said that.
Mr CHANDLER: I do not believe you did, but people would come into …
Mr Wood: I said it should be zoned rural.
Mr CHANDLER: Yes. I know how people work too. People will turn that around and say the member for Nelson said X. They respect you out there, and what you say is gospel. I hope any of the messages which are sent to people in the rural area are based on fact. The only way we can improve that is that you and I – my office, your office – decide to meet more regularly and be more consultative with what we are working on. However, it has to be done with a level of confidence that information which is shared with you is then not spread, because people do muck it up and get the wrong impression.
Yes, there are many things we are working on at different stages. Some of it is highly confidential because of the commercial nature and the people who are sometimes involved. Some of these things may be years away from being turned off to never happening because (1) it may not stack up financially, and (2) public pressure in a certain area may cause the development to fall over. There are many stages of development; they do not just happen overnight. There are processes we go through, whether it is rezoning stages or development consent required through the DCA because the application has come through. And there are EDPs and processes.
Even with exceptional development permits where I am ultimately the one who decides those processes, I still use the Development Consent Authority as my authority to undertake the process – the public hearings and consultations. I then rely on their reports to make a decision, including having my own department look at things and provide me with that information. I hope people have faith that there is a process involved, and it is not just that a developer walks in – and sometimes this is the perception people have – and says, ‘This is what I want to do and can you sign there, minister’, then they go and do it.
It does not work like that. It never worked like that under the Labor government; it never worked like that under the previous CLP government. There are processes which are accountable today, as the member for Nelson rightly knows. He has taken a couple of FOIs out recently with regard to me and particular processes ...
Mr Wood: I have been waiting for 30 days for some of them which was one page – not from you, but the department.
Mr CHANDLER: You will get that information. I welcome FOIs because they will uncover that there is a process. Some of them are very long-winded processes, but there is a process in place. That is all about good planning.
What I have often found, though, with dealing with the member for Nelson – and I am not picking on you, Gerry – is many of your constituents come directly to me and do not bother going to you because they know what your answer will be. They might be pro-development and have an idea to develop their land. They will not go to you because there is the perception, ‘Do not go to Gerry because he will not support that’. So they come to me to talk about a development. As I said to you before, you are well respected in your electorate and people do listen to you, but there are people who want areas of the rural area to develop.
I often use this place to describe that it was my great-grandparents who had 120 acres in Coburg. They used to run milking cows in Coburg. If anyone knows Coburg in Melbourne today, there are no milking cows ...
Mr Wood: There is plenty of milk in the lattes.
Mr CHANDLER: There is plenty of milk in the carton in the shop.
Cities grow over the years. Unless we could draw a line on the sand and say, ‘No development in the Howard Springs area; we are going to jump over and go somewhere else.’ These are strategies worth considering: the city of Darwin would always be protected by a rural area and further development further out. I am not sure how Weddell would factor into that.
Planning is always something will polarise people; they are going to be right on your side or right off it. Are the ideas that come through from the member for Nelson the views of the entire electorate or the member for Nelson’s views on a particular subject? The member for Nelson often comes in here and uses the phrase, ‘I am not against development’, but I am yet to see something you have supported out there ..
Mr Wood: Coolalinga?
Mr CHANDLER: No, in my time. Right?
Mr Wood: The block next door to Coolalinga? Woolworths Coolalinga?
Mr CHANDLER: That is the great wall you were complaining about. You called it that wall of China ...
Mr Wood: No, you do not understand. All of Churcher’s estate.
Mr CHANDLER: What I am saying is there will always have to be a balance when it comes to development, and not only in the city.
You are right, that wall you talked about in the CBD – I cannot stand it. I would dearly love to have no height limits in the city whatsoever. But the trade-off to that is buildings are not allowed to take up their entire footprint. The footprint is reduced so there is a major gap between each building to preserve views, allow for breezes to flow and, more importantly, allow for walkability between buildings.
As the member for Nelson pointed out – and I thoroughly agree – when you see a wall of buildings like that from the street level, what can you do? Nothing. If there were gaps between buildings, walkability, coffee shops, tree-lined streets and bench seats for people to sit on – I have visited cities where there is the concept of lovely leafy little laneways and streets between buildings where people have put in coffee shops, or a few seats to sit on, lovely gardens and water falls. On the street level, they have made the city exciting and liveable and cooled the city down. They have done some amazing things to turn city development around.
That is a bad example of planning. I totally agree we have to change that. If we are to save the CBD, we have to change the Planning Scheme right here and now.
In regard to the rural area, there will always be challenges, because not everyone has the same view. Some people want development. I get pressure from people every day who want development, for a number of reasons. It is not all about making money. In some cases, it is about ensuring their children have a future in the rural area. They want their children to be able to build houses in the rural area on existing land. There will be polarised views about the rural area.
One commitment I give the member for Nelson tonight is, although I cannot support this motion as it is written today, I will commit to working with you in a more consultative manner about developments in the rural area, so I understand your and your constituents’ views. But you must also understand some of the pressures and ideas put forward from rural residents – your constituents – so you get a better understanding and a bigger picture of what we are trying to deal with.
I agree with you that good planning is essential. I put it on the record again, have there been some decisions in the last 12 or 18 months that should not be considered good planning? Absolutely. I would make a different decision if we had a perfect situation. We do not, we have a government in a lot of debt and deficit and we are trying to turn off land as quickly as we can. We cannot always do something like Weddell tomorrow. Do I want to see Weddell in the future? Yes, it will happen, but in the future.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for initiating this debate. It is very important in the development of the Litchfield area. Once again, he is very prepared and has a lot of documentation. The one thing you can say about the member for Nelson is he is a true advocate for the people he represents in the electorate of Nelson. In his history, as the former Litchfield Shire President, he has a long-standing interest in service delivery, appropriate planning and maintaining the lifestyle of residents in the Darwin, Palmerston and Litchfield regions.
We have heard tonight that the members for Nelson and Goyder worked quite closely over a number of years around the important issue of planning in the Litchfield and rural area. I also thank the minister for Planning for responding, and understand he will be working closely with the member for Nelson in future, opening his doors and giving his phone number to the member for Nelson so he can ring him on any issues, although the member for Nelson does not agree with any planning in rural area, as the minister said. I appreciate the word of the minister for Planning that he will undertake to do that. However, I disagree with him a little. He could have supported this motion as it is.
I am a great supporter of the rural area. I spent my younger years in the leafy Jingili suburb in Freshwater Road. Then, after a family loss, we moved to Darwin River, where I lived from 11 years of age. I finished schooling at Howard Springs and Taminmin High School. Those years were very important to me. I lived on a big block of three separate properties with my paternal grandfather and my uncles.
I have great memories of growing up in Jingili and in the rural area in the early 1980s. I do not think there were many 11-year-olds with their own car who could hoon around the property, going down to our lake and dam, enjoying rural life. What the member for Nelson said about our children having the opportunity to have horses, safely ride their quad bikes around properties with helmets on and the existence of rural life struck a chord with me.
It is a lifestyle choice. That is what we must, fundamentally, remember. People move to the rural area to enjoy the lifestyle; they do not want the hustle and bustle. Sometimes people take the mickey out of Darwin; it is not a big capital city like Melbourne or Sydney. But to some people it is too big and that is why they move to the rural area. It used to be Howard Springs, Humpty Doo and further on, but unfortunately, due to progress and the population growth of the Territory and Darwin in particular, those areas are becoming more and more populated. The people who have moved there are long-term residents and stay for a reason: because they want to live rurally. They want that existence of not having to complain about somebody next door when their music is too loud or anything like that. The neighbour might be a kilometre away; it was even further, in our instance, when we moved to Darwin River.
That is the important aspect the member for Nelson is trying to get at: that people live in the rural area for a reason. They want the space, the lifestyle, the peace and quiet, and a proximity to nature which the large rural blocks deliver. That is why they made a choice many years ago, and people are still making those choices. I was a bit shocked with ‘Noonamah Ridge’. I was getting a bit worried about that. As the shadow minister for Planning, the lack of planning and consultation around these rural blocks and the future planning of the Litchfield area is a huge concern.
We have to get this right. That is why I thank the member for Nelson for bringing this motion to the House. There is no going back; once this is done, it is done. The minimum lot size for a rural resident must remain at 1 ha and not 0.4 ha. It is being promoted by developers and the Planning Commission that blocks smaller than 1 ha should be located within villages of district centres.
Past governments, including this one, issued many plans. The member for Nelson had a plan with the member for Goyder when she was in opposition in the former Labor government. They got together and issued their own rural living – was it called rural living plan or rural centre plan?
Mr Wood: Rural Centre Plan.
Mr VOWLES: Rural Centre Plan. The more people who speak about planning, no matter if it is urban, rural or remote, the better opportunities you will have to get it right. That is what people live in the rural area for. They want to get the planning right; they do not want small blocks. It is an opportunity some people will take; as the minister was saying, some people want smaller blocks. They might want to subdivide their blocks to build a dwelling for their children to live in, or something similar. That is the choice the owners have.
When we have rural developments coming up which have been going through the Planning Commission or are proposed, it is quite alarming for me, as somebody who was born and raised here, that these blocks are getting smaller and smaller. There seems to be a lack of consultation. That is why I was very happy to hear the minister say he will contact and have open dialogue with the member for Nelson and, I am sure, the member for Goyder, about rural planning ...
Mr Wood: And the member for Daly.
Mr VOWLES: And the member for Daly, is that right? I did not think he mentioned you, mate, but I am sure you will be in those discussions because it is important. As I said, once you get this plan out, you cannot go back. We have seen the Draft Greater Darwin Regional Land Use Plan issued.
I am going to speak briefly on what is a big issue for us because it is still on the plan, that is, the Elizabeth River dam. It is a huge issue. I ask the minister, as the responsible minister – as the Chief Minister said – surely they are not going to dam the Elizabeth River? It is still on the plan and that is concerning for many people.
I go back to what the member for Goyder said on 7.30 NT about the Elizabeth River dam:
- That’s completely unacceptable – the Elizabeth River is a drainage channel and if it was to be damned, apart from the environmental impacts and the social impacts, it would flood major parts of the Bees Creek, Virginia area.
She also expressed concerns about the urban sprawl in the rural area, which we are talking about tonight, and the lack of detail in the land use plan.
I can understand why the member for Nelson has put this motion. I and a number of my colleagues in opposition are obviously very keen to discuss that tonight
Rural living is compatible with small, medium-scale industry such as farming, horticulture, aquaculture and niche market tourism, as I am sure the member for Daly is fully aware. We stand by our record when we were in government of five new suburbs in Palmerston and Weddell. The minister mentioned we might have had a glossy brochure about Weddell, but we had plans and were ready to go with Weddell for 45 000 residents. This is why we have to get the planning right. That is why we are here tonight debating this motion.
I am sure the member for Nelson might have already mentioned it, as a former Labor government, our approach is against us sometimes. We are not about a policy of development at all costs, which is what this CLP government is doing. It seems not many proposals, planning processes or opportunities which have gone on to the minister have been turned down. That is why the member for Nelson has raised this rural plan. We are talking about small blocks, and that the government does not go ahead with this plan to develop Holtze Howard Springs into a suburb of Palmerston with 9500 blocks. It is deeply concerning.
Mr Wood: With 36 000 people.
Mr VOWLES: Which is, as the member for Nelson has just informed me, 36 000 people. I am sure, as the Minister for Health found out, that very vocal bunch in and around that Holtze Howard Springs area will make their voices heard. I am sure their voices will be heard many more times over the next year or two.
Our economic development must be sustainable, environmentally sensitive and not impact adversely on the amenity and lifestyle of our communities. Above all, we must listen to our communities about their aspirations and the type and scope of development they would prefer and choose to live in. I support the member for Nelson’s comments earlier. The member for Nelson is asking – and we have been asking – this government to have a regional approach to planning. Do not ram things through – consult! There has been a lack of consultation on planning around the Territory. We need to make sure there is a reasonable approach to all planning and that we are listening, as opposed to arrogant contempt for the community viewpoint, which is not a strength of this government.
The member for Goyder has made her views on the Darwin regional plan crystal clear in regard to the Elizabeth River dam, as I said. The members for Nelson and Goyder oppose the dam as does the opposition. However, once again this government is refusing to listen to the opposition, and the members for Nelson and Goyder.
There were nearly 90 submissions about the plan. We have spoken to many of the people who have contacted us saying, ‘What is this dam still doing on the plan?’ How can you be looking at damming the Elizabeth River? The plan is still to create a 870 ha lake and 40 km of waterfront land. This is an old plan from the 1980s or 1990s the CLP had, and it was almost a mirror image of the regional use plan of former minister Tim Baldwin, who might have been the Planning minister at the time. It is almost identical where the Elizabeth River was dammed. In today’s costs, we believe this canal estate will cost roughly $190m to develop. We will see how that goes.
I am asking the minister to take some control and initiative and take the dam off the plan. You cannot dam the Elizabeth River. The member for Blain knows that but I think he put it in one of his brochures. The member for Drysdale knows you cannot do it because people would have been talking to her. The member for Brennan, the other Palmerston member, knows because people surely would have said, ‘Do not dam the Elizabeth River’. It is pretty simple.
Regarding the resurrection of this old plan and the CLP’s obsession with damming the Elizabeth River, it is time to move forward, listen to Territorians, the opposition, the members for Nelson and Goyder, and maybe the member for Daly. I am sure he is against damming the Elizabeth River. The impacts environmentally would be significant. I do not think anybody supports it.
The obvious conclusion is the CLP canal estate comes first and the views of the rural residents come last. We agree with the member for Nelson that the CLP should keep its election promise to develop Weddell as the next major urban centre for the greater Darwin region. I know there are other members keen to speak on this debate. I was not going to take too much time but I thought it was very important, not only as the shadow minister for Lands and Planning but as a former rural resident, a supporter and person who has many friends and family living in the rural area who have come to me very concerned about the lack of consultation and these small blocks.
Mr Deputy Speaker, we need to ensure we get this right. We will keep fighting for the rural area to make sure the Planning minister has some control, does the right thing, does not make smaller blocks which would impact on people who want to live a rural lifestyle, and we give them the opportunity to do that.
Mr BARRETT (Blain): Mr Deputy Speaker, I met with the Litchfield Council recently and its members were very excited about the initiatives this Giles government is using to develop north Australia. I spent a couple of hours there and went through Google Earth camera all around Litchfield on a virtual tour. I went through everything the Litchfield Council is looking at doing or would like to do. We discussed what the Litchfield Council would like government to do, what sort of plans and visions it had, and what we could do to help with these ideas.
The members are very excited about developments, particularly the ones in the Coolalinga area. We spent a lot of time talking about that. They are very excited about the increase in population in the area. There are several larger blocks that have been subdivided for rural living which will provide another choice for people wishing to live in the rural area.
There were other Crown land blocks belonging to the government they were looking at, saying they would like us to release those. If we could do that, developers would be able to continue to create that option for people who enjoy the rural lifestyle.
Litchfield Council has some great visions for opening up different lot sizes, from larger blocks down to quarter acre blocks. The reason? Because it understands there are …
Mr Wood: Where?
Mr BARRETT: Gerry! I will tell you.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please refer to the member by his electorate name, not by his name, thank you.
Mr BARRETT: Sorry, member for Nelson.
The reason? Because they understand there are many elderly people in the rural area who do not want to move away from their networks and community and into town. As they grow older, they are unable to manage such large blocks and they need to be given the option to stay in the area where their networks and friends are in the community they have lived in for a long time, and which they love.
The Litchfield area is large and contains some great opportunities for business. Here is an interesting, fun fact: there are more businesses in the Litchfield area than there are in the Palmerston area. This means some business types, like transport companies, are looking to move out to where land is less expensive. Possibilities include trailer laydown yards, light industrial areas, service centres for the quarries that lie further beyond and agricultural service companies.
It was great to see the vision the council has, and the mayor’s willingness to work with businesses, developers, residents and government to navigate through the tricky tides of change and see the rural area change in such a way that is positive and good for the majority, and that provides the amenities necessary to service that growing population without losing the culture, heritage and feel of the place.
The rural area has a culture ingrained; it is a unique place. Although the face of it will change, which is inevitable, perhaps the member for Nelson could be disposed to look at ways of ensuring the culture of the rural area remains intact and there are legacies put in place that connect the newcomers to the rural area that embraced them and assimilated them into that culture. The member for Nelson might well be risking ostracising newcomers to the rural area because they could not afford a big enough block. As the population changes, I encourage a move towards embracing people into that rural area.
Planning is very important and is also very divisive. People have different ideas about what the future of the Northern Territory should look like. All cities grow and there are movements of boundaries over time. Darwin is no different.
One of the saddest things about Australia is the sprawl which sometimes occurs on some of the best farm land in the country. We talk about having available land for agriculture, what a problem it is and that we do not have enough arable land for growing food, while the Sunshine Coast houses some of the most fertile land in Australia.
The city will evolve, and making legislation that stops that progression is dangerous. The population of Darwin is moving outwards, which will put pressure on the rural area and the lifestyle of the people who live there.
I recall the outrage when the lights went in at Howard Springs when I was a young bloke. I recall people saying the neighbourhood would go downhill from there. However, the government needs to govern for the greatest good to the greatest number. Right now there are many people, even in the rural area, who wish to allow smaller blocks than the motion presented by the member for Nelson would allow.
The movement of people is inevitable. We will see that the large rural blocks will be further away. It might take 50 years. I did not hear the same issues raised by Litchfield Council, which sees some of these areas presented for smaller blocks being made available as a great opportunity.
We have been talking about Holtze, and in this instance the Litchfield Council sees this as a great opportunity to create a compromise. This compromise will mean they will be able to collect rates in these new areas and funnel some of those funds towards the further development in roads and other infrastructure in the rural area. The view the member for Nelson is taking may not be the view of all the people in the rural area. A compromise in these areas is wise because it diversifies the income streams and means residents living on larger rural blocks will be able to enjoy the services this extra funding will provide.
There are those in the rural area who would be wise enough to see this and manage it. There will be people in the rural area who wish to subdivide their properties in the future when they are older, to make their retirement simpler. Many people bought in the rural area hoping one day this pressure to subdivide would happen and, as such, they would be able to make money on this. I also acknowledge there are those who live in the rural area who would like to maintain their lifestyle as it is. The trick of governing is balancing all of these pressures and working out solutions that affect the least number of people in a negative way.
There is a wise saying that you cannot please all of the people all the time. This motion may have the effect of pleasing a few and making a lot of other people very unhappy.
The notion of this dam keeps raising its head; I remember it materialised during the Blain by-election and was created as an issue. It was a non-issue that became an issue. I remember the glossy brochures with the ‘going, going, gone’ slogan – how to scare a bunch of people 101. The Labor Party has an obsession with raising this non-issue. Why? Because so many people have already said there is no dam and there will not be one. Keep scaring people, because you clearly do not have anything real to complain about.
Mr Deputy Speaker, due to the restrictive nature of this motion, I cannot support it.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this motion. The essence of this motion is something my community is passionate about on a different level. The member for Nelson is passionate about protecting the rural lifestyle, similar to me and the Nightcliff and Rapid Creek residents fighting to preserve our tropical seaside lifestyle.
I am astounded at some of the comments I have heard from the other side. People need to remember that planning is a science, it is not about looking at what we can get off blocks or what is convenient. We need to plan.
Darwin was a planned city, which you can see through Alawa and those suburbs further north which were beautifully planned with major arterial roads and smaller roads to cul-de-sacs. Each suburb had a school, a park and a small shopping village. Planned suburbs are easy to live in. We are seeing changes to planning that are ruining the nature of our suburbs. The spot rezoning we are continually seeing more of is ruining the planning of the past and affecting residents. This motion talks about planning which will change the rural lifestyle.
When I was at school a long time ago I undertook a study of Palmerston. Palmerston was a completely planned city, as you would know. The area that is now Woolworths was meant to be medium-density housing. I understand from my studies that was changed by the government at some stage in the late 1980s or early 1990s to become retail, which means we now have a horrible intersection where the roundabout is, with Coles and Target on one side of the road and Woolworths and other smaller shops on the other side. It is not pedestrian or car friendly.
That is an example of people overruling planning. That was a planned area, designed to have Coles up to Target and across to the bus depot. That was all meant to be commercial, and across the road was to be medium-density housing layering into lower-density housing.
The reason the member for Nelson is so passionate is because people are fighting for a lifestyle. As a planned city we should have high-density housing around our hubs and in our city, and suburban homes and rural living. People should be able to make a choice about what they want. It is something I am passionate about. In my community we have a beautiful lifestyle. We have a village and some higher-density areas, but we also have large tropical blocks that are under threat. I am talking about 1200 m2, beautiful blocks that let people have a home with airflow around them, and which creates living without air conditioning. This spot rezoning we are seeing more of, particularly from this government, is increasingly frustrating.
The minister for Planning was kind enough to come to Nightcliff to hold a briefing. I explained to him the passion our community feels, similar to those in the rural area. He was very dismissive tonight of the 1000 people who have signed a petition, so he would have been equally dismissive of the 50 or so residents who signed a recent petition in our community against the four-storey development proposed for one of our suburban streets. The residents there got together. I know you think 75 ED nurses are worth laughing at, so you probably do not want to hear about 50 concerned local residents. But it is important to us. It was important enough for them to come together as a community, to have some meetings and to visit me to collect signatures. They went out of their way.
The proposed development in this case will significantly interfere with the amenity of surrounding homes; the size of the block is inadequate for the proposed increase traffic flow, which will impact on the safety of residents and pedestrians who use this circuit; and it will create congestion at the entry and exit point. They went on to talk about on-site parking issues and a lack of provision for visitor parking. However, what they are really protesting about is a change to their lifestyle – a simple spot rezoning change without any planning. Those residents were very passionate. They went through the process with the DCA.
I will read one of the comments made to the DCA which they sent to me as the local member, in their objection to that development. One resident said, ‘The current occupancy of the land is single dwelling. The proposed development is for nine dwellings. How will this ninefold increase in occupancy impact on the provision of electricity, water and sewerage services to other dwellings in the street?’
In my electorate office, we check development applications every week. Probably a couple of times a month we get one, look at it, and if it is something simple like a shed going up on someone’s property, we do not take any further action. But if it is a change to the zoning or will impact on surrounding homes, we make the effort to letterbox nearby homes. If you drive a particular way to and from work, you might not realise the house behind you and two down will be turned into a four- or five-storey block with nine units.
We had another property in the area which I spoke to the minister about. As I understand, Power and Water objected to the property being rezoned from single dwelling to multi-dwelling because of the increased pressure on essential services and the increased cost. The school objected because it is already on a traffic intersection point. Yet the minister for Planning rezoned it. We were astounded in our community, because this block was amongst single-dwelling blocks. Hearing the comments from the minister tonight probably explains why that was rezoned.
However, I will go on with my comments from residents around this other block, which echo so many in our community. They talked about air conditioners, where they will be located, the noise impact on surrounding residents, the introduction of many vehicles, the architecture of the balconies facing out onto the street not keeping in appearance with the street, developments that rely on the foliage of neighbouring properties to be for visual buffering, changing the character of our suburban streets by having units, nearby neighbours affected by fluorescent lights and additional vehicles coming and going. This is something I hear continually in my area.
I held a barbecue in one of the parks the other day. Since we last had a barbecue there, another unit tower had gone up. There is a tropical elevated home smack bang between two towers. The poor person in the middle eventually will give up. This is all spot rezoning. There is no master plan to it. The minister and I spoke about a master plan for the Nightcliff/Rapid Creek area, and I urge him to again consider that, as that is what residents would like. Consult with the community.
As for rural residents, member for Nelson, I have been a rural resident for approximately four days of my life. When I was about 14 my parents decided I could not miss some school when they had to visit family down south, so they sent me to Howard Springs. I still hold memories of those four days. It was great fun on our friend’s block. They had a flying fox, and it is a unique lifestyle.
We have friends who live there now. When they bought there, we all said, ‘We will not be coming to visit you’. We camp when we visit, because it is a bit of a trek. Just as I want to live in Nightcliff and Rapid Creek with a seaside lifestyle, they want to live with some space and have a shed with a few boats. They just want space and that ambience – what this government is proposing to take that away.
I speak with passion about my suburb. That is why I am speaking in support of this motion by the member for Nelson, because it is important, as members of this parliament, that we stand up for every aspect of our unique lifestyle, and put pressure on this government to stop spot rezoning, stop these changes and have a decent plan for our city.
The member for Blain said: ‘This is not about the greatest good for the greatest number, this is about good planning, splitting blocks, subdividing them to make money’. Those are appalling comments. That is not what this motion is about; it is about preserving a unique rural lifestyle.
When Nightcliff and Rapid Creek residents came into this parliament they were arguing against the proposed Nightcliff island. That the government has issued a lease for a man-made island in the harbour without any consultation shows its arrogance. The government really needs to stop. It needs to start listening to local residents, to the community, to the residents of Darwin and the rural area, so we can see the views of the community reflected in planning decisions.
The minister for Planning tonight said that he feels the planning decisions in the last two years, in an ideal world, would not have been made. Minister, that is completely wrong. Planning is a science; there is no room for compassion. If you feel that is the way then if you cannot take the heat you should get out of the kitchen. We can talk about examples within all our communities where planning was ignored with spot rezoning. We deal with those issues every day in our community.
I urge you as a government to start listening to the people. You are so arrogant and you have ignored my community …
Mr Chandler: I went to your office to talk about planning.
Ms FYLES: And you absolutely ignored …
Mr Chandler: Tell me what minister from a Labor government came to the opposition’s offices to talk about planning issues?
Members: None.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can people stop the discussions across the floor. They should talk through the Speaker, thank you.
Ms FYLES: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I pick up on the interjection. You came to our community and we told you of our huge concerns around a rezoning, and two days later you rezoned that block. Every month we have a spot rezoning. In the community of Nightcliff and Rapid Creek we are seeing spot rezonings that are causing huge stress and impact on local residents. We already have traffic flow issues, and a primary school that is completely full. There are pockets of Nightcliff and Rapid Creek that can be developed, but it needs to be in a planned and coordinated way, not with the granting of five-year leases for a man-made island.
Minister, I pick up on your comments where you said you have a heart. I have a huge problem with that comment and remind you that planning is a science. Not everyone wants to live in an air conditioned house or a unit block, but that is how you seem to want to shape our beautiful tropical city.
Like the residents who are fighting for their tropical seaside living, the people of the rural area want rural blocks, space, acreage and a bush lifestyle. That is the essence of this motion. We do not want to see small blocks; we want to see large blocks. We want to see options for people when they come to live here.
Part of the reason people live in Darwin is because they do not want live in a Sydney or Melbourne. They want to live a unique lifestyle. They want to have those options.
The Planning Commission quietly released its Towards a Darwin Regional Land Use Plan late last year and nowhere in that plan was the Nightcliff island proposal. There are so many unanswered questions in our planning at the moment. Comments from the community show they feel these developments would further destroy Darwin’s main appeal. People do not want to live in another Sydney or Melbourne. They come to the Territory and live in our towns, whether it is Katherine, Alice Springs or Darwin. They come here to live and enjoy the natural environment. These planning decisions are changing the shape of our city.
Just as my community has made it clear, the member for Nelson’s community has made it clear with 1000 people signing the petition that was handed to parliament today. I have spoken to friends in the rural area who have all highlighted that they have stopped when the member for Nelson has been beside the road with his mobile office.
I know the member for Goyder is equally passionate about her rural lifestyle. You just have to have a look at her Facebook page. That is great, we need to have unique lifestyles that suit different people.
I remind the Planning minister that earlier this year in parliament he said he has faith in our processes, but tonight you have shown your disregard for these comments.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this motion. It is important we fight for our tropical city and our rural living. I commend the motion to the House.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Mines and Energy): Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to contribute tonight to the member for Nelson’s motion regarding development of the Litchfield area.
I can give an indication now that I will not be supporting the motion and I have a great deal of faith in the current planning processes of the Northern Territory, especially in our Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment, who works very hard in this space. I will touch on, while I am on my feet, some of the things happening within the Litchfield area for which I have responsibility and maintain a great interest. The things happening in these types of developments sit within my area of interest and responsibility and have effect on planning issues.
There are many exciting ventures already under way, or about to occur, in Darwin’s rural area. I often say Katherine is the centre of the universe, but you could be forgiven for thinking the people in Litchfield think it is about to become the centre of the universe as well. I am sure they think they are very important, and I do not take that away from them because it is terrific to be proud of the area in which you live.
My portfolios of Mines and Energy, and Primary Industry and Fisheries are responsible for many of the industry sectors already established and thriving in the Litchfield area. First, I want to talk about the Top End’s extractive industry for which my Department of Mines and Energy is responsible for regulating and licensing. The extractive industry, in layman's terms, means extracting sand and gravel and the production of crushed stone products, the essential ingredients necessary for making the materials needed for building any infrastructure. That means no roads, rail, building or major projects can occur without material produced and supplied by our extractive industry.
Within the Litchfield area, there are many leases used by the extractive industry. Some might complain about the location of these leases within the Litchfield area, but their location is a major factor in driving down building costs. The further you have to transport material, the higher the expense for building. The Northern Territory’s extractive industry supplies the materials needed to build the infrastructure which supports the development of the Northern Territory.
Earlier this week, the Chief Minister announced the development of a $300m shopping centre on Roystonea Avenue in Palmerston. It is a great announcement and something this government’s worked very hard with the developer to achieve which will be a great boon for the Palmerston region.
In his announcement, the Chief Minister said:
- Development approval has been given to Coombes Property Group to build the Gateway Shopping Centre which will create around 3000 direct and indirect jobs, boosting the local economy.
This major development could not take place without the materials supplied by our local extractives industry. Some of the jobs created for this major project will be within the extractives industry, which is a great news story for that sector.
Another major project which is almost complete is the Australian Agricultural Company’s new $90m abattoir or meat processing facility under construction in the Litchfield area – specifically, in the Livingstone area 9 km south of Noonamah. Again, this major project would not be possible without the materials supplied by our local extractives industry.
The abattoir will help our pastoral industry as well by providing a market for livestock not suited for live export, and an alternative market in the advent of future disruptions to the live cattle trade. It will also provide an opportunity for diversification of the northern herd over time to supply cattle more suited to prime beef processing.
I note with interest the announcement earlier today by the Corrections minister that prisoners from the Darwin and Alice Springs Correctional Centres are making and installing the holding yards for AACo’s abattoir. I note the news coverage on that tonight and commend the minister for Corrections for the work he has done in that area. He was quite right when he said we would much rather see people in training and with jobs than on welfare. I highly commend the minister for corrections, who is doing a terrific job in that area and taking corrections to a new level.
While there is an extraction of building material from leases located within the Litchfield area, an important message for Territorians today is that no oil or gas exploration permits will be issued there. Across the Northern Territory all suburban locations, as well as Darwin’s rural area, are protected, as they are under a reserve block.
Another major industry in the Litchfield area is horticulture, for which my Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries is responsible. It is estimated that around 80% of all irrigated horticulture and agriculture production in the Top End takes place in the Litchfield area.
In regard to the motion it is particularly important to note the comments made today on ABC radio’s Country Hour by the NT Planning Commissioner, Gary Nairn, regarding the Draft Darwin Regional Land Use Plan. In an interview, Gary said while the draft plan identifies potential new residential areas in the Darwin rural area, it was critical that farming activities remain in this area, and that the draft Darwin regional plan had also identified new potential land suitable for agricultural and horticultural purposes.
The Territory’s horticulture industry includes fruit, vegetables, nurseries and cut flowers. This sector is valued at almost $200m a year to the Northern Territory economy. Asian vegetables are a small but rapidly growing section of the Northern Territory’s horticulture industry, and were recently valued at around $30m. With increasing demand for Asian vegetables from export and domestic markets, Northern Territory growers are uniquely situated to take advantage of this opportunity, and their high standards of production and post-harvest handling ensure a quality product is reaching the market place with a shelf life which meets consumers’ expectations.
While a wide variety of vegetables and herbs can be grown in the Northern Territory, our excellent seasonal conditions mean that premium quality produce can be grown year round. The major vegetables produced in the Territory include cucumber, bitter melon, okra, snake beans and pumpkin. In the 2012-13 season the value of cucumber production increased to an estimated $7.2m, up from $5.8m on the previous year. In fact, cucumber output weighed in at a fairly massive 2864 tonnes for the year. Who would have known the Northern Territory would be producing so many cucumbers? In the same period the value of production of okra was estimated at $13.7m, bitter melon production values were estimated at $9.8m, the snake bean production value was $9.5m and the production value of pumpkin was $9.7m.
My Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries recently conducted a project to address product quality and safety, which was specifically aimed at growers in the vegetable industry for whom English is not their first language. Many of these people live in the Litchfield area.
The project involved conducting workshops on grower properties and presenting material on the post-harvest management of vegetables, integrated pest management and sustainable water use. The project also funded Freshcare audits for 13 growers. Freshcare, the largest Australian on-farm assurance program for fresh produce, provides assurance that produce is fresh, safe to eat, has been prepared to customer specifications and legislative requirements and has been grown with care for the environment.
My department last year hosted a grower tour to Sydney so local growers could examine post-harvest problems in wholesale markets firsthand and see the retail outlets for their produce in Sydney. Much of this produce comes from the Litchfield area. More recently, a vegetable growing manual for the Top End of the Northern Territory was released. This has also been translated into Vietnamese with the help of funding from the Territory Natural Resource Management’s Caring for Country program, and was presented to the Vietnamese Farmers Association. My department was also able to secure funding from the Carbon Farming Futures’ Action on the Ground program to develop ways for growers to reduce nitrous oxide emissions from their horticulture crops with better nitrogen management.
Scientists from the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries are working with vegetable growers in the Darwin rural area to determine the best way to monitor nitrogen in vegetables, testing leaf, sap and soil, and looking for relationships to nitrous oxide emissions. Their aim is to work out how to develop better nitrogen management during the Wet Season, the off-season for growing vegetables in the Top End, by using cover crops to immobilise nitrogen in the soil, therefore preventing nitrous oxide emissions.
It is an exciting time to be involved in the Asian vegetable industry in the Top End. As I said, much of that is occurring in the Litchfield area. We are all aware that mangoes are the Top End’s greatest horticultural success story. It is an exciting time across the entire Northern Territory.
The County Liberals government has real plans and real vision for the development of northern Australia. Each geographic district of the Northern Territory has its key strengths. As I have said, the Litchfield area can and does supply many different facets across many different sectors, from our fruits and vegetables to building materials for our major projects. In economic development and potential, it is an exciting time for the Litchfield area.
To the heart of this motion, I say to the member for Nelson in bringing this before the House today I understand you are, essentially, doing what we all must do – holding on to what is unique about your area. As members of parliament, it is our right to do this, and it is what unites us. While we fight for our local areas, we all want to make the whole Territory a better place.
It is pleasing for me, as the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries, Mines and Energy, Land Resource Management, and Essential Services, that there are many incredible achievements under way in the Litchfield area. However, as a government, we must look at the Territory as a whole. We do this because we want to make the Territory better for all Territorians and not just a few.
With regard to this motion, I note that across the Territory we have a distinct lack of housing. This is something I feel in particular in my electorate of Katherine. I heed the words spoken by the member for Brennan about growth. The Territory is growing. We must accept this. I want to see development and I believe we can do that without losing what is special to the Territory’s way of life.
I was listening carefully to the comments the member for Nightcliff made in that regard, and I agree. Many people live here because it is not a Sydney or a Melbourne. With careful planning, we can provide a lifestyle to Territorians that is and remains different from that which we experience down south. But going about it by supporting a motion such as this will not get us to where we need to be, given many of the problems we face in the Northern Territory, such as the planning problems we have had in the past from the previous government – the lack of housing and land release – all go to make a picture that is difficult to manage. I have every faith in the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment to take care of this aspect of planning, particularly in the Litchfield area.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not support the motion, but I commend the member for Nelson on representing his electorate so well. It is something I know he is particularly passionate about. I enjoy listening to what the member for Nelson has to say about his electorate. He has every right to support the people of his electorate and do what he thinks is right for the people of his electorate. But at the end of the day, we also have to look at the greater picture and the greater good for the Northern Territory.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank everyone who has contributed. I will start last. Thank you, member for Katherine. I would like an opportunity one day to speak on why the rural area is so important, and not just from the horticulture, agricultural, tourist, extractive mining and environmental perspective that is so special. It is a great place and, of course, good planning protects that.
I will go back to the days when this plan was set in place. Land was set aside in Berry Springs and Lambells Lagoon for horticultural development, which was great. It was done because there was good water and soil in those areas. Something that is a problem in the rural area is the clash between rural development and extractive mining. There is no doubt areas south of Humpty Doo cause some issues for people living in that area.
While the minister is here I would like to say something about my views on subdivision. If anyone comes to me and says, ‘I would like to cut my block up in half’, I say to them, ‘No, if you are asking for a single block to be cut up’. That is why I complained about a certain block, you might understand.
If the minister decides to advertise that a section of the rural area be rezoned, let us look at it, but let us look at it carefully. If a government wants to rezone, you have to allow all landowners to rezone, not just a particular landowner to whom the minister gives special privileges.
It is not a simple case, as the member for Blain mentioned, of cutting the rural blocks up. I am not against 1 ha blocks. I am against quarter-acre blocks in the rural area. I am not against quarter-acre blocks in a district centre. It would not make any sense to have quarter-acre blocks next to 1 ha blocks. I have never been against smaller blocks. I have just said under good planning you put them in a certain area. When it comes to subdividing 2 ha blocks, then you need to do it in a logical and considered way.
I will tell you why there are issues. First, do people want to have neighbours? They come out there for a 2 ha block to enjoy the space. If you then subdivide the land, how much water do you have? You have to have town water for 1 ha blocks. Some blocks have it, but they might not have enough. You need adequate power otherwise you have to put in transformers.
If you have roads with 40 blocks, and you want to allow them to rezone their land so they can chop it into half-sized blocks, you then have the potential for 80 blocks. You have 40 developers. Who will pay for the upgrades of the infrastructure? If it is a road that has no water, someone will have to pay for the pipeline. If some of those people do not want to pay for the pipeline, it is not going to happen, especially if they are No 10 down the road, unless you want to pay $300 000 for a pipeline.
There are in-built issues that people need to have explained to them about why it is difficult to chop up existing 2 ha blocks. I say again it is not because I am opposed to it. How does the government do it in a way that does not upset residents already there, and at no cost to the government? I am not expecting the government to pay for the cost of a pipeline down a road that somebody wants because they want to make money out of their block. That is what most people do.
You have fundamentally difficult issues to do it properly if you have 40 individual developers. It is not a problem if a person has a large block of land. I have never been against 1 ha subdivisions.
When people come into my office that is what I tell them: I do not support individual blocks being subdivided. If it has the support of the people, if there is a practical way of doing it and if the government advertises it is interested in rezoning a section of land, I will look at it.
There is a gentleman out there who said, ‘I built my house on the back of my block of land’. Why? ‘So I can subdivide it and make some money in my retirement’. Hang on, he bought a 2 ha block. He has plans to cut it up. Sorry, he should have bought a smaller block. He knows there are 1 ha blocks in the rural area. Do not use what he thinks is a good idea as a means of making money by cutting up his block as a reason for changing things. It should be done on good planning grounds.
I need to make another explanation. Minister, I hate with a passion that people say I am anti-development. I supported Churcher’s first big subdivision on Anglesey Road. I supported Churcher’s second subdivision on Hicks Road and Rogers Circuit, the subdivision south of Humpty Doo on Goode Road, and the fourth subdivision on the Girraween Lagoon, which the council procrastinated about for so long you could hardly get the thing to operate. I supported Coolalinga and I got flack for it. I supported Fraser Henry’s subdivision of The Grange. Ask the council whether it supported some of the things he was putting there. I support the Spencely Road subdivision being put in.
I support planning in its right place. I hear people who do not understand planning making comments. The member for Blain said, ‘There are pressures on the rural area’. I say, ‘Read your own CLP documents’. These are not mine, this is what was put out when you were in opposition. This is one page of it. It says, ‘Planning for greater Darwin, a dynamic harbour city’. I did not put that out; that is the CLP’s plan. I support it, then am told I am talking rubbish.
I do not want to see the spread of Melbourne. I was brought up in Melbourne and I saw what sprawls do.
I always supported the plan that you have five cities around the Darwin Harbour with the harbour the centre. What you will do if you develop Hughes as a pseudo-Weddell is kill off the concept your CLP government promoted since 1990. It was promoted before that, which is what it is so hard. I stick up for what you planned.
You say you do not have the money. Hang on! What is your future projection of development? In the next two years, another 2000 houses and blocks? You should have some money in the bank by then, because you have made all these cuts and you have extra money from the GST. The ex-Treasurer told me how well you are going now because of where you have cut the cloth here and there. There is a bit of money going into the bank now. In two years’ time you might have money in the bank.
You are making decisions now saying, ‘We are broke’ or, ‘The Labor Party left us in a bad state of affairs’. I must admit I am sick of hearing that rhetoric. We were in debt, I do not deny that. However, some of that debt was essential debt, because if they had not done it we would not have the Weddell Power Station, the poo shooter and the Snell Street and Casuarina substations. They were things they had to do and go into debt for. Part of the reason for that is both governments did not do anything in years gone by.
The CLP believed you could run it until it breaks and then fix it. The CLP did not want to increase the tariffs because it looked bad. Of course, nothing happened. When it did happen, lots of money had to be spent. Then, when they spent a lot of money they got into trouble for it. Who put the pressure on the poo shooter? I sat here time after time listening to jokes about the poo shooter. When they built it at the cost of $80m or thereabouts they were blamed for being in debt. I am not saying they did not spend some money unwisely, do not get me wrong. However, sometimes I do not think there is fair criticism.
You say you are out of money, but will you be out of money in two years’ time? Will you have recovered enough money to start building Weddell? Are we being premature in allowing Hughes, Noonamah Ridge and that area to be developed? I am not against that area being developed; it is just out of proportion. I have said that to Gary Nairn, the Chair of the Planning Commission. It is well out of proportion with the rural area; 45 000 people are more than is in Palmerston at present. How many high schools, primary schools, day care centres and libraries are there in Palmerston? That is what comes with a the city. Will this be that? I hope it is the government’s role to ensure that comes in a coordinated way.
This is not coordinated, this is one person saying, ‘Nice block of land’. They have good plans, do not get me wrong’, but it is basically a piece of real estate being chopped up. There is nothing wrong with that, but it has to be part of what I believe to be the government’s visionary role to develop the area in a certain manner. That is not happening here.
You mentioned making some decisions and that you overrode the DCA. You overrode the DCA about Humpty Doo. What annoyed me so much is that the government has land in Humpty Doo. It can sell residential land in Humpty Doo tomorrow; it has a heap of it which has been sitting there for ages. I could not convince the previous government, which said there was not enough infrastructure. The infrastructure went in and they said there was still not enough infrastructure. There is residential land in Humpty Doo that has not been developed; there has been one duplex in 20 years.
Rural people will live there. The good member for Blain talked about one-quarter acre blocks for older people, which I agree with. A retirement village would be better than giving them one-quarter acre blocks. There is the Freds Pass district centre with two schools, as well as a childcare centre. The rest belongs to the government. It is down there for residential and some commercial development.
Berry Springs has a district centre. It has a new shop, a post office, the member for Daly’s new office and a hardware store. It is in the centre of the tourism section, and it is your land. Have you developed it? You could develop it, but you have not. You have gone away from the original plans and developed something else down the track. I am not talking about rubbish; I am talking about what is in your plans.
The minister also talked about people saying I might have given the wrong information. I held four public meetings in the rural area, at Wallaby Holtze Road, Howard Springs, Girraween and Humpty Doo. Did anyone from the Planning Commission hold discussions there? I went through their entire original plan with a PowerPoint presentation from top to bottom and did not talk about the politics. I only explained what the Planning Commission would do.
I then received the new version from the Planning Commission, and I issued this map. It is hard to see from there, minister, but the zones are all there. You said a bloke had told you I had said Commonwealth land is rural. In regard to Holtze Howard Springs, I said we should have two district centres, one near the hospital and one near the prison, because eventually a road will go through to Gunn Point, so that would be a good place.
I said all other land, which I covered in brown – it took me a long time to work out how to do that in Publisher; there are things on the computer I struggle with. I overlayed the zones in brown and said they could be developed into 1 ha or 2 ha blocks. The ‘CA’, for Commonwealth, is still under there. It shows the existing zone was there. They may have misinterpreted, but I try to be as fair as possible when people come to see me.
I am not against development. I am passionate about rural development because I see it as an important part of the makeup of our social fabric in the area. If you destroy it, you destroy something special. It is not only for me. I am 64. Blimey, I will not be riding a horse, etcetera! There are people who want the chance to enjoy that lifestyle.
In your summation you said you had costed a block of land at $400 000. I have heard that statement before. The problem with sitting here debating something is I have no chance to argue what that was based on. Land from a private developer at Girraween Lagoon is selling at $412 000 to $432 000 for a 1 ha block – top price. If the private developer is selling land at $413 000, how is it costing the Northern Territory government, for its own land, $400 000? The only thing I can think of is added costs a developer would not add in, for instance, the road to Gunn Point. Have they added that cost?
What size water pipe were they putting in? This is the argument we had with Power and Water. It wanted a water pipe that would be big enough to put out a fire in a house. The fire brigade came to a meeting I held to say, ‘We did not ask for that’. People in the rural area would not expect a water pipe to be the same as one in a suburban district.
If you took the water pipe out of that rural area, this is a rural subdivision with no kerb and guttering, no underground storm water, a basic bitumen road, power and a domestic water supply. Where does that $400 000 come from? I do not know, but it is inflated because someone has said, ‘You have to pay for some other costs’. There is a huge water main – still not connected – all the way along Howard Springs Road up to the prison. It is a big one. I have to ask the Minister for Infrastructure how long it has taken to get this water main finished. It is a big water main – pipes this big. I presume it will be used to help put water into this area, as well as the prison.
I do not know what has happened for the department to come up with this figure. If you think that figure is high, then go to 2 ha subdivision where you do not need town water, and put a bore in. All you need then is a bitumen road and power; that is it. Surely that is not as expensive as doing a subdivision in Palmerston where you must have everything under the sun. I challenge that cost.
Minister, I will not go through too much more. I could talk about the Lowther Road development. People here said, ‘You are probably not listening to everybody you represent’. That 1000 signature petition – I do not go and shove petitions in people’s faces. I know some people do. The petition sat on a table at the front of my office. When I was at the show, I sat back, and if people wanted to sign it, they could sign it. I do not force people to sign petitions, it is not my game – never have. That is 1000 people who signed that.
I went to the Lowther Road subdivision proposal the other day, and 100 people turned up. It is not in my area, it is the member for Goyder’s area. They did not want 0.4 ha blocks. They were passionate about their rural area. So it is not just me! I am the spokesperson, I suppose, because my job is the local member. There are many people who cannot speak as I have to in public; they are a bit shy. They are passionate about retaining the rural area and not letting it be carved up into small blocks.
I thank everyone for what they had to say. I want to check here before I sign off. I know we have been going a long time. I have pretty well covered everything. I am appreciative, minister, that if I ask you, I can have a chat with you. I appreciate that the member for Araluen today said she is happy to make sure I am included in discussions about the hospital.
Politics, to me, is an annoying thing because it puts you on the ‘other’ side, when I do not want it. I do not care about this side or that side, I want to ensure what we do in the future is good for the people who live in the Northern Territory. I will pass on, and people might say, ‘Yes, the place will be cut up’, but even if it is cut up I want it to be done properly. I will give you an example. It may be chopped up.
One of the things I am passionate about – I know I am running out of time – is I have always believed our creeks, lagoons and rivers should be removed from all the subdivisions. I have seen what happened down south where they had to be repaired and revegetated. We have the opportunity to do that first in our developments here and protect them. I have always said it because one day when I am well and truly dead and gone, it could be a suburb. But what we will have done is made sure our watercourses, precious lagoons and wetlands have been protected, and we do not have to spend money on them as they do down south. You only have to look at the Torrens River in Adelaide in South Australia to see how much is spent.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I appreciate everyone’s comments today. I hope we can move forward in a conciliatory way and perhaps find some compromise where there are differences.
The Assembly divided:
- Ayes 12 Noes 13
Ms Anderson Mr Barrett
Ms Fyles Mr Chandler
Mr Gunner Mr Conlan
Mr Kurrupuwu Mr Elferink
Ms Lawrie Mrs Finocchiaro
Ms Lee Mr Giles
Ms Manison Mr Higgins
Mr McCarthy Mrs Lambley
Mr Vatskalis Mrs Price
Mr Vowles Ms Purick
Ms Walker Mr Styles
Mr Wood Mr Tollner
Mr Westra van Holthe
MOTION
Chaos in the Territory government
Chaos in the Territory government
Continued from 16 October 2013.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Health): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I defend the amazing work that has been undertaken by this Country Liberals government over the last two years ...
Members interjecting.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Despite the whingeing and carry on from the opposition, we have truly kicked goals in so many areas. Right across government we have made wide-sweeping reforms – not superficial reforms, but wide-sweeping and deep reforms.
I would like to share with you some of the reforms I have been undertaking in my capacity as Minister for Health, Minister for Disability Services and Minister for Alcohol Rehabilitation. Our work has basically fallen into three areas: investment, reform and innovation in health services within the Northern Territory. We have seen improved access, and we will continue to see progress in Darwin, Palmerston, Katherine, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs and across our vast Territory, including 35 remote health clinics across 41 Central Australian communities and 26 remote health clinics in the Top End.
This year we delivered a Health budget that contained the largest Territory government investment in the health sector in the history of the Northern Territory – $1.352bn – which includes an increase of $36.8m in Northern Territory government funding compared with 2013-14.
One of the greatest achievements over the last two years has been the roll-out of alcohol mandatory treatment, a first for Australia, unprecedented in its boldness and courage in tackling chronic alcohol abuse in the Northern Territory. In just over 12 months, since the Country Liberals introduced this Australian-first program, more than 400 people have already been referred for alcohol mandatory treatment; that is 400 people who have had a chance to reform their lives free of the scourge of alcohol, and have had the opportunity to become real contributors to their lives, their families and the Territory.
In Alice Springs we have had the wonderful cooperation of CAAAPU, the Central Australian Aboriginal Alcohol Rehabilitation Programs Unit. The Chair of CAAAPU, Eileen Hoosan, said the facility is helping to turn the tide of damage caused by alcohol abuse to individuals, families and the Territory community. Simply, the CAAAPU alcohol mandatory treatment service is saving and changing lives for the better. CAAAPU is a place of health, hope and healing. We are so proud to have forged this very strong relationship with CAAAPU. It is working tirelessly to service the 20 beds it currently has, providing alcohol mandatory treatment, and now we are working on extending its service by another 16 beds and setting up an eight-bed assessment facility on its site at Ragonesi Road in Alice Springs.
In relation to the impact alcohol mandatory treatment has had on the community, we have seen alcohol-related admissions to the emergency department of the Alice Springs Hospital reduce markedly, thanks to alcohol mandatory treatment and other alcohol reduction initiatives. The proportion of all alcohol-related emergency presentations who go on to be admitted has dropped from as high as 37% under Labor’s watch in 2009, down to less than 10% in April this year. These are staggering figures. For the opposition to crow about how unsuccessful we are and claim that we are failing is a joke – pure and simple political rhetoric which is not resonating.
In Darwin we have set up an alcohol treatment program which we are soon to move to the prison at Berrimah. It will bring the total number of beds to 150 by the start of 2015. We are undertaking the roll-out of alcohol mandatory treatment in Tennant Creek, which will be a 12-bed facility, and we are building a 20-bed purpose-built facility in Katherine. I look forward to making further announcements on the progression of those two new facilities as they continue to roll out.
It is a great story, people are getting off the grog through alcohol mandatory treatment. All we have heard from the opposition is criticism and negativity. All we are hearing from people on the ground is success and great stories about people trying hard to get off the grog. For some reason, the opposition members truly do not want to hear those good stories; they would sooner dwell and languish in the past they created and were unable to do anything about. They were impotent when it came to stopping the flow of grog. We heard a lot of rhetoric over 11 years about what they would do, tried to do and intended to do, but they did very little. Our statistics speak for themselves. We are getting on top of the alcohol problem across the Northern Territory.
We have heard more criticisms from the opposition over the last couple of days about the Palmerston regional hospital, something they perceive we are not doing. We are getting on with the job of building this major public project. It will be a public hospital, contrary to the fears and anxieties of the Labor opposition. It was always going to be a public hospital. They do not understand what a public private partnership is. It does not mean we are building a private hospital, it is simply about a procurement option which will enable us, if we are successful in securing a public private partnership, to build a bigger and better hospital.
It was far too creative and lateral for the former Labor government to contemplate. They had a very narrow view of what a Palmerston hospital should be and who it should service. They did not get anywhere near contemplating how to do procurement. It was all about rhetoric and empty promises.
I am very proud to say we are getting on with the job, and are making inroads into securing procurement options. We have completed the scoping study. We are looking at the intersection. Contrary to the Labor opposition’s belief, we need an access road as we cannot miraculously land with our earthmoving machinery and create an intersection without one.
It is all good, and we are on track. Announcements will be made regularly about the progress of the hospital, which will be well under construction by the end of our first term of government in August 2016.
We have other hospitals throughout the Northern Territory. We continue to spend a great deal of money on our tertiary hospital, the Royal Darwin Hospital, in development, expansion and improvement. After 11 years of Labor we were left with hospital that has come to its use-by date in so many ways. They took their eyes off the ball. They should have been planning an alternative, bigger hospital, perhaps a Palmerston regional hospital, years before they even put their mind to it. We have a hospital which is, effectively, too small. However, given we are building a new acute facility in the Palmerston regional hospital over the next couple of years, that will ultimately take pressure off the Royal Darwin Hospital.
However, we are expanding the emergency department and the operating theatre to the tune of $22.2m, and that project is 60% complete. As I said, we continue to do much work in expanding the physical facilities at RDH, as well as the operational output in areas we can.
Our budget continues to provide funding of $4.46m to deliver on our election commitment for an additional 400 elective surgeries per year. In Central Australia we have gone above and beyond what we promised, which is fantastic news. It is incredible we have achieved that election commitment of 400 additional elective surgeries per year, and gone beyond it. Criticisms from Labor are so unfounded when it comes to how we are well and truly punching above our weight in health.
In December the Country Liberals government committed $6.5m per annum for the roll-out of enhanced cardiac services, including the establishment of a stenting service at RDH. This was a truly significant milestone for the hospital: the first time low-risk angioplasty procedures had been performed in the Northern Territory. It is fantastic news. It means people do not have to travel interstate, which removes much of the anxiety around these types of procedures and treatment for cardiac conditions.
RDH is also undergoing $22.8m in other new upgrades. This includes an $11.9m refurbishment of the paediatric ward.
I will leave hospitals and go on to the building of new remote health clinics, which includes extensive upgrades of a number of clinics across the Territory. This is a $50m program which will improve healthcare delivery for Territorians in rural and remote areas.
Workers have been on-site at Ntaria – or Hermannsburg – since September 2013 to construct the community’s brand-new $6m health centre, which is great news. Hermannsburg is a significant community in Central Australia which services a significant population. It is a large clinic. This is a town which has been doing it tough with a very old clinic for some time. I am looking forward to inspecting and hopefully opening that clinic very soon. I know the people of Ntaria are very excited.
The tender process for Papunya and Canteen Creek will begin at the end of this month. They are also getting upgrades to their clinics – also well overdue. The Papunya clinic, which I visited last year, is again an old clinic. Also tenders for the clinics at Docker River and Elliott will be released next month, with Galiwinku and Umbakumba tenders to follow in October, and Titjikala in November. There is a lot of work going on in the bush.
We are not only concentrating on Darwin. The former Labor government was Darwin-centric. It was all about Darwin and nothing existed beyond Darwin. We are a government that looks at all people across all parts of the Northern Territory, and that includes the bush.
We reviewed and reformed the PAT Scheme. We have made some amazing improvements in what people are entitled to. We made it a fairer and more robust Patient Assistance Travel Scheme for remote Territorians. We have poured another $7.5m into that. The opposition says we are failing and letting the people of the Territory down. I cannot see any evidence of that in Health.
In innovation, we have recently launched the Breast Screen NT bus at Barunga, which was a fabulous day. The member for Katherine and I travelled to Barunga. I have had some wonderful experiences since I have been a minister of the Northern Territory, but that rates very highly as one of the loveliest occasions. It was so exciting to see those women – mainly older women, because breast screening targets women between the ages of 50 and 65, I think it is – women from middle age onwards. There was a big gathering of them. This means that women living in remote communities no longer have to come into town. They do not have to come into Darwin, Katherine, Palmerston or Alice Springs. That bus will visit up to 20 remote communities on a two-yearly cycle, with women from neighbouring communities encouraged to attend. It is wonderful news for women’s health and for people living in the bush. They were extremely grateful for the first-class state-of-the-art technology in a bus painted pink with beautiful artwork by a lady in Wadeye.
Last month I opened a new mental health accommodation facility to support Territorians and their families. It was the first of its kind in the Territory, located in Darwin – a community-based rehabilitation centre. As I said, it was the first of its kind. It was a very exciting day – a small step because there is such a big demand for accommodation like this residential rehabilitation accommodation for people suffering from psychiatric illnesses. One again, it was a lovely occasion. Residents were already living there, and they were able to talk to us about their experience of living in such a comfortable well-appointed house in which they were supported and helped to get through this particularly difficult stage of their treatment outside of the acute unit.
This year the Country Liberals government also held the first dedicated conference on suicide prevention – another milestone we celebrated in Health. Two years of our government and we are kicking goals – the first of, the first of, the first of. There is a whole list of things that have never been done before in the Northern Territory, but are being done in health services under this government. Feedback from local stakeholders and the 100 experts who attended the conference said it was a very fruitful and productive suicide prevention conference, and the deliberations will help to shape the Territory’s first strategic reform of the way we approach suicide prevention in the Northern Territory.
We have also reformed health policy across our health services. This week we introduced landmark legislation to the Assembly to ban the smoking of cigarettes in cars carrying children under 16. We are the last jurisdiction in Australia to do that. Why? Because the former Labor government did not have any initiative. They were asleep at the wheel by the end of the 11 years; they were unmotivated and not doing their job the way they should have. This is an obvious reform we have been able to get through in a very short space of time. People across the Territory and Australia are applauding us for this small but significant initiative when it comes to looking after the health of children and adults. You should not smoke in cars.
Another one of our landmark reforms this year was to introduce legislation that will once again allow private midwives to practice in the Northern Territory. We were lobbied hard by a group of stakeholders and we have been able to open that up again. Once again, under Labor, privately practicing midwives could not practice, now they can. A significant change to the legislation means a large number of people are a whole lot happier with the midwifery services we are providing in the Northern Territory.
The number of nurse practitioners under Labor, throughout the Northern Territory, was three. We have launched a strategic plan. One of the first things I did when I came into my position as Minister for Health was identify that this was totally unacceptable. In all other jurisdictions across Australia you have dozens, and in some places hundreds. We are a small jurisdiction in the Northern Territory, but three is appalling. We have set a target; we will work on creating an additional 25 full-time positions for nurse practitioners in our workforce over the next couple of years. They will be working throughout the Northern Territory in all parts of health service delivery – chronic disease, diabetes, heart disease and mental health. Hopefully we will get a few of these people to work on remote communities to take the pressure off the doctors.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am running out of time, but I refute the opposition’s accusations that we are failing and in some way letting the people of the Northern Territory down. From a Health perspective, I know we are not doing that. We have been punching above our weight and working extremely hard. I also know across government the exact same is occurring: we are working extremely hard reforming, and at the end of the day we will be applauded and appreciated for our hard work.
Mr CONLAN (Central Australia): Mr Deputy Speaker, the motion is Chaos in the Territory Government – I do not have it in front of me. Is it something like that?
Let us look at an example of what a chaotic Territory government is. I am more than happy to take you through an example of a previous Territory government that was in chaos and led the Northern Territory down a very destructive and shameful path.
The previous government was voted out in 2012 by the people of the Northern Territory looking for light on the hill – we have provided it for them – after the economic failures of the previous chaotic government’s debt and deficit, tracking to $5.5bn of debt, taxing jobs.
Where were the building approvals under the previous chaotic Territory government? Small business confidence was plummeting across the Northern Territory, mostly in the regions. Retail sales were in free fall and job ads declined. Those are some of the examples of the economic failures of the previous government. It is a great example of what a government is like when it is in absolute chaos – housing failures and land release delayed.
The land release strategies of this government are above the land release strategies of the previous government. The minster for Lands and Planning has embarked upon some of the biggest land release strategies the Northern Territory has seen for decades. Remote Indigenous housing failures were a huge mess for this government to clean up after the previous government left the people of the Northern Territory with those huge failures.
This government campaigned very hard on the cost of living left to Territorians by the previous, chaotic Labor government – housing costs skyrocketed and rotted. Labor’s stamp duty bonanza was absolutely unbelievable. The population exodus we saw under the 11 years of the previous government saw people leaving the Territory in droves.
Infrastructure was going backwards under the previous government. The current Giles Country Liberals government, led by the member for Sanderson, the Minister for Infrastructure, is embarking on some of the biggest remote and regional infrastructure programs the Northern Territory has ever seen.
We have seen education failures and are all well aware of the state of education in the Northern Territory with literacy and numeracy issues, school enrolments and attendance. Minister for Education, where did the previous government leave us with regard to school enrolments and school attendances? In a pretty poor state. Where did they leave us with literacy and numeracy? In a very poor state.
The Health minister has just outlined in her 20 minutes what this government has done to address the failures of the previous government, most notably the growing hospital waiting list. As I said in a speech earlier today, the previous government left the Northern Territory with some of the worst hospital waiting lists in the country. In some cases we were the worst. We used to tussle a bit with Tasmania. Tasmania would sometimes be the worst, then it was the Northern Territory’s turn. More often than not, the Northern Territory came out on the bottom of the hospital waiting lists throughout the whole country, with focus on elective surgery waiting lists.
There was health roulette in the emergency department. We saw a couple of bungling Health ministers at the time. The previous member for Johnston was stripped of his portfolio of Health after lurching from one crisis to another. Then we had the man who is currently sitting in the departure lounge preside over some the worst health outcomes in the Northern Territory.
Child protection failure was rife in the Northern Territory. Law and order was their worst legacy. Nowhere, apart from law and order, did the previous government fail more than in child protection. That was the government which saw a couple of reviews – one being the Little Children are Sacred report – and presided over the intervention, or the emergency response into child abuse in remote Aboriginal communities. Let us not forget that was under the previous Labor government. It cost them their best Chief Minister, to be perfectly frank, and the Northern Territory an incredible amount of bark. Child protection was the tsunami of harm and need in remote Aboriginal communities under the previous government.
The Territory lifestyle suffered dramatically with regard to law and order issues across the Northern Territory. I am well aware of what was going on in Alice Springs and Tennant Creek. Darwin and Katherine also suffered enormously under the previous government. Law and order was spiralling out of control. If child protection was not so abhorrent and serious, you could say law and order was their greatest ever failure. Because you put children in harm’s way, then obviously child protection was.
Law and order was a major problem for the previous government. It was paralysed and had no idea how to deal with it or address issues relating to law and order, particularly in remote parts of the Northern Territory. Our rehabilitation programs and recidivism failed under the previous government, and sentences failed to match the expectations of the community.
They talk about ministerial reshuffles and are very quick to point the finger at the current Giles Country Liberal government, but there were 141 ministerial appointments under the previous government, in the long decade of governance failure under Labor.
You cannot go past the culture of cover-up. That was one of the hallmarks of the previous government, and something they did extraordinarily well. Labor is good at covering things up, doing dodgy deals with unions and racking up debt. Those are three things they excel at. We have seen it firsthand. They excelled in those three areas during their decade in government – the long 10 years Territorians suffered under the previous government.
Let us look at some of the areas of this government to counter that. Those were the failures of the previous government, so let us look what has happened in two very short years under the Country Liberals government.
Under my portfolios, let us look at tourism. We have reconstituted the Tourism Commission. We did not turn our back on the regions, unlike the previous chaotic government; we have empowered the regions by placing Tourism NT’s headquarters in Alice Springs, much to the opposition of the Labor Party. They did not like the idea; they thought the sky would fall in and could not grapple with the idea the regions were to have some clout. Against all of the consternation regarding the relocation of Tourism NT, we have done it. It has been a huge success and has been well received broadly across the tourism industry.
There is $16m of additional funding into our marketing budget; we have doubled our international marketing budget, compared to the previous government. The previous minister for Tourism presided over what is, essentially, half our marketing budget today. We have injected an additional $16m in the last two years into marketing the Northern Territory as a preferred holiday destination above all others, both internationally and domestically.
You could break that down into about $13m for domestic marketing and about $17m for international; it might be the other way around, so it is nearly half and half. There is a bit more leaning towards international at this stage. We have just realigned some of those priorities. Nevertheless, there is a total budget of $30m to market the Northern Territory. It is more than the previous Labor government ever put towards marketing the NT. No wonder tourism was in such a decline and a perilous state under the previous government.
We have refreshed the Do the NT campaign. It is now about what you can do. The Northern Territory was always seen as a place where you cannot climb, walk, touch or swim. We need to market the Northern Territory as a place where you can actually do things. It is a place where you can do great things and have great adventures. That is how we market the Northern Territory.
We have put $500 000 into the tourism infrastructure program, a wonderful initiative by the Giles Country Liberal government. That is $500 000 going to operators across the Northern Territory to improve their tourism infrastructure business.
The list goes on. In Sport and Recreation, we have a sporting festivals bonanza. Never before has there been such a bonanza of sporting entertainment in the Northern Territory – the Eels, the Demons, the Reds and cricket. It does not end, with the Mitchell Street Mile coming up on 21 September. It is growing in popularity, and we are already attracting world-class runners to the Mitchell Street Mile. It will be a huge event for the Darwin CBD.
By 30 June 2015, the Sport Voucher Scheme will see an additional $12m injected into grassroots sporting organisations. There was $5m last year, and now there will be $12m going directly into grassroots sport. That is an incredible program and those sporting organisations are reaping the benefits of that. In many sports, they are seeing record numbers and registrations. There has also been a 50% increase into peak sporting bodies, a commitment we made on coming into government in 2012. It is a commitment we will continue – as we did in 2013 – to meet in 2014-15.
Having the sports awards in Katherine was something we did. We decided to take the sports awards to the regions. Blow me down, why not? It was a huge success in Katherine. I know some members opposite were there. I am sure they enjoyed the night and they will vouch it was a terrific evening. What is important is we recognise the regions. It is about trying to take key events out of the capital city and spread the love and these events across the Territory. We have done that in Katherine this year. Obviously, because the size of the cultural centre could only take 250, we squeezed them in, and we had a flying night. It was a terrific evening.
Sport and Recreation has never been in better shape. We are having a red hot crack at this, and are starting to pull off a few wins. A traditional event, the Masters Game, is coming up in a couple of months’ time, and we are determined to make this the best games ever. Franz Samaranch used to say it was the best games ever, and we have a good chance of pulling that off as well …
A member: It was Juan.
Mr CONLAN: Yes, Juan.
We have talked a lot about housing. That has been raised a couple of times over the previous few days in these sittings. There will be 2000 new homes by 2016 under the Real Housing for Growth program. We are well ahead of our target. In year one, 200; year two, 400; year three, 600; year four, 800 – overall 2000 new homes. We are already halfway there. We are already, in fact, over halfway. We will deliver more than 2000 affordable homes. They will be on the market for Territorians to get into their very first home by 2016.
Already, Territorians have the option with our affordable housing program under Real Housing for Growth, because we have delivered more than we said we would. We will, in 2016, have delivered those 2000-plus homes which will be on the market.
That will free up those waiting lists. The previous government did nothing. They sat on their hands for 11 years and did nothing when it came to addressing public housing waiting lists. In 11 years, they built 375 homes. That is 37 houses a year you built in 11 years. We have built 1000 homes in two years already. We will deliver 2000 onto the market by 2016. That will go a long way to freeing up waiting lists. It is pretty clear it will go a long way to addressing waitlists, because you move people and provide them with a leg up, essentially. You provide people with an opportunity to get out of public housing and into the rental market …
Mr Giles: The member for Wanguri used to be a housing adviser who did nothing about it.
Mr CONLAN: She was also the Housing shadow, I have to say, and she was not very forthcoming with too many questions in the House about housing. It is again a reluctant recognition of the great work the Country Liberals government is doing in the housing space.
We are actively addressing the waitlist. The waitlists have always been a problem in the Northern Territory. As the need grows, there will always be an issue with providing quick access to public housing. The Real Housing for Growth program will go a long way to getting people out of public housing and into the rental market which, in turn, will free up more of those homes for public housing tenants.
Tenancy housing maintenance contracts are more efficient and have quicker response times. It has been proven. We have already shown it works with our new tenancy maintenance contract regime across the Northern Territory. It means people are getting their taps, doors, sinks, toilets and bathrooms fixed. You name it, they are getting it fixed, not only more cheaply but more quickly, and they are getting it fixed by Indigenous people working on their own communities. That is what they are doing. In fact, of all the housing maintenance contractors …
Mr VOWLES: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Can we check if that clock is right, because we are a bit over this. He is just rambling. He seems to be …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did not like that. That I find a bit derogatory.
Mr VOWLES: I am just asking if the time is right because I know we have some time issues.
____________________
Withdrawal from Chamber
Member for Johnston
Withdrawal from Chamber
Member for Johnston
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Johnston, can you leave for an hour, please?
Mr VOWLES: Why?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: You referring to me in that way, and saying ‘I am a bit over it’ …
Mr VOWLES: Asking if the clock is right?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. Do not push it! And no comments on the way out either, thank you.
_____________________
Mr CONLAN: Mr Deputy Speaker, with the tenancy maintenance housing contractors not only is the work being done at a more efficient rate, but Aboriginal people on their communities are undertaking this work. Of all the housing maintenance contract workers, 72% of them are Indigenous workers on their own homelands. It is a huge success and we are seeing it ...
Ms Walker: No it is not. It is not.
Mr CONLAN: It is a fantastic success, but once again the member for Nhulunbuy does not recognise success. She is not interested in great news. She hates Housing gardening competitions, for crying out loud, why would she like anything groundbreaking? She does not, because she does not like herself very much, so there is no chance she will ever like anything like this.
The Indigenous Home Ownership Program is a policy this government launched on 1 July …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, it is now 9 pm. We will revert back to General Business.
Debate suspended.
TABLED PAPER
Legislative Assembly Fuel Transaction
Report – April to June 2014
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table a Legislative Assembly fuel transaction report for April to June 2014.
TABLED PAPER
Public Accounts Committee Annual
Report 2013-14
Public Accounts Committee Annual
Report 2013-14
Mrs FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, I table the Public Accounts Committee’s Annual Report 2013-14.
This annual report gives an overview of the committee’s work over the last financial year. The main focus of that work was its inquiry into the management of ICT projects by government agencies. That inquiry arose out of the committee’s examination of the Auditor-General’s reports, which included audits of three ICT projects that raised significant concerns for the committee, the foremost of these being the failed asset management project.
The size of the losses incurred by the Territory from this project required close examination. The committee made a range of recommendations that should help agencies get better outcomes from their ICT projects in future, resulting in better services for Territorians.
The year also saw a significant change in the functions of the committee, with the amendment of standing orders so the committee can examine any matter within the executive authority of ministers of the Territory.
The committee’s first use of this new function was to examine the bills then before the Assembly for the structural separation of the Power and Water Corporation. This enabled the committee to receive and publish submissions from interested persons and hold public hearings where proponents of the legislation where able to explain its operation and address members’ questions. Interested groups and experts also explained their views on the bills.
While the committee did not come to a consensus on the merits of the bills, the inquiry process was able to give a good public airing and examination of the key issues, and inform the Assembly’s debate of the bills.
Throughout the year the committee continued to examine the Auditor-General’s reports and to discuss issues arising from these reports with the Auditor-General, and, when necessary, the relevant agency Chief Executive. As the main issues arising from this process were included in the committee’s report on the management of ICT projects, the committee did not produce a separate report on the examination of the Auditor-General’s reports.
On behalf of the committee I thank all those who have assisted the work of the committee over the last 12 months, particularly agency Chief Executives who continue to be very responsive to the committee’s requests, and others who have made submissions to or appeared before the committee.
As noted in the report, the committee is also indebted to Frank McGuiness, the Auditor-General, for his ongoing support. I also thank the members of the committee for another year of working cooperatively towards improved financial accountability and management in the Territory’s public sector.
MOTION
Print Paper – Public Accounts Committee Annual Report 2013-14
Print Paper – Public Accounts Committee Annual Report 2013-14
Mrs FINOCCHIARO: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Note Paper – Public Accounts Committee Annual Report 2013-14
Note Paper – Public Accounts Committee Annual Report 2013-14
Mrs FINOCCHIARO: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the report be noted and seek to continue my remarks at a later time.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
I inform the House that the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse will hold a public hearing in Darwin in the week beginning Monday 22 September. The hearing will focus on events that took place in the Retta Dixon Home in Darwin between 1946 and 1980.
The Retta Dixon Home was established by the Aborigines Inland Mission in 1946, with financial support from the Commonwealth government. The purpose of the Darwin sitting is to hear the experiences of men and women who were sexually abused as children at the Retta Dixon Home.
We welcome this inquiry, and the Northern Territory government will cooperate to provide any information requested.
The events that took place in the Retta Dixon Home represent a sad chapter of Australia’s past, and this Royal Commission will investigate the how and why, so we can move forward with more confidence in the future. It will shed new light on the activities in the Retta Dixon Home in those early years after World War II and consider how much childcare has changed since.
Specifically, the commission will investigate the response of the Australian Indigenous Ministries, formerly known as the Aborigines Inland Mission, to allegations of child sexual abuse against workers who were employed at the Retta Dixon Home.
It will look into the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory government’s responses to those allegations. The Royal Commission will consider the response of the Northern Territory Police Force and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in 1975 and 2002 to allegations raised by residents of the Retta Dixon Home against Donald Henderson. It will inquire into the current laws, policies and procedures governing children in out-of-home care in the Northern Territory, and the options for redress for people who were the victims of child sexual abuse while resident at the Retta Dixon Home.
Discussing child sexual abuse can be difficult. This is especially true for survivors, their families and professional staff supporting them. For many, recalling the events of the past can bring back painful memories, particularly for those telling their story for the first time. The Royal Commission is offering to refer survivors of child sexual abuse to counsellors or special support groups to assist. The Northern Territory government is offering a professional, confidential counselling service free of charge to all government employees and their immediate family members.
The Retta Dixon Home was established at the Bagot Road Aboriginal Reserve in 1946 by the Aborigines Inland Mission to care for children returning to Darwin after being evacuated in World War II. It became a boarding home for Aboriginal children and mothers, run in conjunction with a hostel for young Aboriginal women. A review of the Retta Dixon Home in 1950 reported the average yearly number of children at the home was 70, and the average number of women receiving prenatal and after care was eight. Children stayed at the home until they were 18 years of age.
It was named by the Australian Human Rights Commission as an institution where children of the Stolen Generations were placed. It moved to cottage-style accommodation on the reserve in 1962 and was closed in 1982.
Beyond that, I do not intend to go into any further detail about the Retta Dixon home or the investigation. The Royal Commission is one of the most powerful legal tools in this country and it should be allowed to run its course. It is above politics.
As a community, we should not fear the truth, we should embrace it. We must learn from the mistakes of the past and embrace the future, better informed and better armed to ensure everyone is treated with the respect they deserve.
I urge every Territorian to be understanding of the difficulties many people will face giving evidence to the Royal Commission and to show them respect. This investigation will be hard on the victims, their families, the investigators, witnesses and the community as a whole. They all deserve our support.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this Royal Commission has the full support of this government. I hope this inquiry brings some closure to the victims and their families.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I place on the Parliamentary Record a summary compilation of Tennant Creek and Barkly community events that have taken place since the last time I attended the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly.
I quote from the opening address of the sensational Tennant Creek and Barkly Golden Heart Awards:
- Welcome. Tonight we come together to celebrate our wonderful, dynamic, vibrant and caring community, a community with a golden heart and a mighty generous spirit.
Our community is brimming with people who quietly go about good deeds, not seeking reward or acknowledgement, but safe in the certainty of being good people. The Golden Heart Awards is a celebration of our amazing community, of our businesses, sports people, artists, musicians, volunteers, caring organisations, seniors and youth.
I would like to take a moment and encourage you to look around the room tonight, each and every one is surrounded by people who give, people who care and go about their daily lives and do extra things that make our community a great place to live. People who get involved, do that extra deed, who pitch in, have a go and we thank you. How good are you all?
This is our third Tennant Creek and Barkly Golden Hearts Awards ceremony and once again the GHA committee spent many hours planning, discussing and working hard to make this event a happy event for everyone. I thank them for being generous and considerate. I want to take this time to thank the judges. They have asked me to convey the judging this year was extremely difficult, the standard of nominations were very high this year, they said all who were nominated were more than worthy of an award. This year was so difficult they met on many occasions to discuss the nominations. They congratulate everyone who was nominated.
Talking about the nominations and nominators I want to say this, you are just as special as the people being nominated because you are caring, you have a giving heart, you also have a golden heart because you see the good in people, you see the worthiness of others, you have beautiful souls. This night is just as much for you as those nominated. Thank you for your generous spirit and for contributing to tonight’s event.
The Borroloola Show was on 27 June 2014. I remember the first gazetted show. It is unfortunate I do not get around as I would like to; it is such a big electorate and there are so many demands on time and space. Good on you, Borroloola. Continue to celebrate that show and the uniqueness of Borroloola, a frontier outback town which held another great show on 27 June 2014.
The ABC races at Brunette Downs: grass-fed racing at Brunette Downs has enjoyed 104 years of unbroken tradition, now encompassing camp drafting and rodeo into a well-attended annual ABC amateur race meeting.
The official launch of the Barkly National Disability Insurance Scheme Trial on 1 July 2014: the Tennant Creek and Barkly NDIS trial represents the first trial site in the Northern Territory, and the first trialling of a roll-out in a remote area. Trial sites play an important part in shaping the future success for the national scheme, with the Barkly community featuring front and centre in advising the national research for regional and remote areas.
Barkly Regional Council Territory Day celebrations on 1 July 2014: once again, there were markets, a jumping castle, live entertainment, fireworks and a great gig for the community to celebrate Territory Day in Tennant Creek and the Barkly.
The 2014 Tennant Creek NAIDOC Week from 6 to 10 July had an incredible theme of Serving Country – Centenary and Beyond. The program was great once again. Congratulations to the committee. There was football for men and women, as well as the NAIDOC march, which I love. There was a family fun day and the elders’ day brunch is sensational if you want to hear some ridgy-didge history. Of course, there was the NAIDOC ball to conclude the week.
The Tennant Creek Show on Friday 11 July 2014: it was great to see the cattle back. The season was a good one. There were great exhibitions from the locals and the dog show has become quite famous, pulling people from all over the Territory. There were also the V8 utes and sideshow alley.
The Australian Army was welcomed at Wutunugurra by the Wutunugurra and Canteen Creek communities on 29 June 2014. The 6th Engineer Support Regiment, working in remote communities as part of this year’s Army Aboriginal Community Assistance Program (AACAP), is at Epenarra, Wutunugurra and Canteen Creek communities, and doing a fantastic job. I will be speaking more about that later.
The NT Legislative Assembly Inquiry into FASD in Tennant Creek: on 30 July we had the public forum, with a public hearing on 31 July. Thanks, Tennant Creek, it was a great turnout. You advised the committee, and you represented Tennant Creek and the Barkly with an exemplary turnout and advice for what is a very important inquiry.
I will now read a story from the Tennant Creek & District Times newspaper from 27 June 2014:
- Magnerys farewell Tennant after decades
The number 30 seems like a recurring motive in the life of Yvon Magnery.
Thirty-one years after the German Luftwaffe bombed Rotterdam’s unique medieval architecture to rubble in May 1940, the young Belgium born merchant seaman sailed out of the port city, the second largest in the Netherlands, on the American-built liner, The Australis, during one of the last waves of European migration to Australia.
He set up home in one of the most remote parts of the country and turned his hand to gardening and light equipment maintenance.
Yvon, then aged 20, found himself in Weipa on the Cape York Peninsula in far north Queensland, a stranger in a strange land but with a determination to create a good life for himself.
Always up for a challenge and not afraid to do the hard yards and go the distance to fulfil a dream, the young Yvon travelled around Australia and tried his hand at whatever work he could obtain.
He was even a dairy farmer for a while in New South Wales until the call of the Northern Territory became irresistible.
‘I thought the Northern Territory was like the last frontier and so I decided to go to Darwin and see for myself’, Yvon said.
- ‘Darwin was where I met my darling wife Sumini and we have been married now for 30 years’.
‘Last Sunday, 22nd June, was my 30th anniversary in Tennant Creek’.
The Magnerys came to Tennant Creek in 1984 when Yvon accepted a position at the newly established sobering up shelter.
- Within a couple of months he was managing the centre and soon introduced a residential unit.
Eager to learn and with a huge intelligence, loads of empathy and a natural affiliation with the clients, Yvon turned the shelter into a successful operation which filled a huge void in the community.
When the then-Government decided to close the sobering up shelter within the first two years, Yvon travelled to Darwin and, politely but firmly asked to meet with the minister, Don Dale.
By the end of the conversation, after determined negotiation, the two had agreed that the shelter would stay open although funding was halved.
He said that he didn’t mind running on a shoestring budget because the less there was, the more resourceful he learned to be.
Yvon set up a counselling service and soon after, following the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, his ideals and the shelter had become the flavour of the month.
The group running the shelter had become the Barkly Region Alcohol and Drug Abuse Advisory Group (BRADAAG) and extended the service with the acquisition of a disused old children’s home in Staunton Street, thanks to a $35 000 kickstart from the Northern Territory Government.
At first there were six beds available but soon three houses across the road increased the number to 20 and BRADAAG went from strength to strength.
In 2002 Yvon handed over the reins at BRADAAG and moved to the Department of Corrections where he remains as the manager.
Until today.
Sadly Sumini and Yvon are retiring and migrating once again, this time to Sumini’s home island of Java in Indonesia.
Yvon says he’ll miss the town and the people and has nothing but good things to say about his 30 wonderful years in the outback.
‘It’s time for us to retire and Sumini really wants to spend some time in Java’, he said.
‘After battling cancer for the past four-and-a-half years, Sumini was declared cancer-free this week so we’re leaving on a high, happy note’.
‘We have a modest landholding in Glenmore, a district of Banuwangi regency in the East Java province, where we can continue with our passion for gardening on a slightly bigger scale than in Tennant Creek’.
The Magnerys will be growing coffee, rice, rubber and chocolate but they will be back and forth between Java and Australia.
‘We are citizens of Australia and this will always be my home country’, Yvon said.
‘Sumini and I would like to thank everyone in Tennant Creek for 30 fantastic years here.
‘We have always worked to bring fair justice to the community and it has been a great honour and privilege to do what we have done and to live in such a beautiful place.
‘One thing is for sure and that is we’ll both be great ambassadors for Tennant Creek and for the Aboriginal people we have come to know and appreciate.
‘We will never forget Tennant Creek and will come back and visit whenever we can’.
Mrs FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, this evening I pay tribute to my great aunt, or Zia Giovanna Finocchiaro. I intend to read into history the eulogy given by my cousin, Ross, son of Zia Giovanna, at her funeral.
Zia Giovanna was born into this life on 12 February 1934 in Torre Faro in the Italian Province of Messina. She spent her final days surrounded by a vigil of love and prayer. Giovanna left this world in peace and entered eternal life on 1 August 2014 in Darwin.
On 11 August 2014, our family and friends gathered at St Mary’s Cathedral to celebrate the life of Zia Giovanna and mourn for our great loss. It was a beautiful service and I know, speaking with my other zii after the burial, that Zia Giovanna would have been so proud of her sons, Terry and Ross, for such a touching farewell.
Zia Giovanna is survived by her husband, Pietro; sons Ross and Terry; daughters-in-law Angela and Lisa; and grandchildren, Jordan, Ryan, Messina, Ethan and Santo.
I will now read the eulogy into Hansard:
- Hello, I’m Ross the eldest son.
What do you say after a life of love?
I can relate to you some family history as I’m sure there are those here that would like to know something of my mother’s life.
My mum was born just over 80 years ago to my grandparents, Maria-Arena and Salvatore in Torre Faro, a coastal Sicilian town that is at the closest point to the Italian mainland; not far from the Sicilian port city of Messina.
Salvatore was a hard working postman who loved his youngest daughter very much and Maria-Arena was a doting mother who had her hands full. Apart from her cousins, my mum had four siblings including older brothers Giacomo (known as Giacomino) and Letterio (known as Lillo), older sister Caterina (known as Inuzza); all deceased. Mum has a younger brother, Antonio (known as Nino). Uncle Nino now spends his time between Messina, Torre Faro and his grandchildren.
Mum spoke much of her childhood and of the mostly funny comings and goings of village life. Mum in particular always greatly felt the loss of her father to illness, as it was during WWII and the nearly half-a-million strong allied forces of then Generals Montgomery and Patton were overrunning Sicily. By the time the allies reached Torre Faro for the ferocious battle with the retreating Germans in mid-August of 1943, my grandfather had passed away, happy in the knowledge that Mussolini had been deposed. Mum was only 9 years old.
Life became even harder in post war Sicily. Her eldest brother returned after escaping from the Germans and so the family was together but my grandmother had taken over from my grandfather as postwoman and had to deliver through rain, hail and sunshine. With time, my uncles found work on ships and so contributed to the family finances.
Mum had a limited education but excelled at school up until she had to finish in grade 8. Mum went on to learn the craft of dressmaking in Messina, as was common for a young lady of that time, and life was improving.
In the meantime, my father Pietro (Peter), together with his twin brother Santi (known as Santo) decided to migrate to Australia in 1951. Pietro spent time in Newcastle and Fremantle then heard of the work opportunities in Darwin. He arrived in 1954 and not long after, opened the crash repair business known as Darwin Panel Works. His brothers Ottavio (Otto), Benito (Benny) and Giuseppe (Joe, deceased) joined him in Darwin and in the business. His brother Marco-Aurelio (Mark) instead started Fannie Bay Bakery which later became Darwin Bakery. Dad helped his brothers to establish themselves in Darwin as much as possible. Santi returned to Italy.
In the latter part of 1960, dad returned to Sicily for a holiday. He met my mother through a mutual family friend who lived in Ganzirri, the town next to Torre Faro.
They were married in the biggest wedding the town had seen and then they went on their honeymoon trip around Italy.
Dad brought mum to Darwin in late November 1960. Mum told me that it had been raining, it was hot and humid and steam was rising up from the tarmac: She thought that she had landed in hell. My mum never complained or said that she wanted to return to Italy. One of the last things she said to me was that Darwin was the best place in the world.
My father had promised to take mum back to Italy regularly. A promise he kept with family holidays each five years and a few in between when mum went alone to look after her ailing mother Maria-Arena.
In Darwin in the early days, my parents shared a house with my paternal grandmother (Teresa) and my aunties and uncles until 1962 when their own house had been completed in the block adjacent in what was then Stokes Street, Fannie Bay (now Seale Street). There wasn’t much around but bush and a dirt track that served as a street.
I was born that year and my brother followed the following year. The old home movies show a happy and fun life around the modest home and on the various extended family outings around Darwin and overseas at Mandorah.
On the promised first trip back to Italy in 1966, my father’s mother passed away in Darwin. Although I have no memory of that, I remember a kindly grandmother who would even go to the extent of peeling grapes for me. Mum loved nonna Teresa.
Mum would dote on us; driving us to and from school every day and making sure that my school mates were jealous of the delicious wog-food that we would take to school whereas as they would have to content themselves with fritz and sauce sandwiches or the bland like.
Our life was interrupted by the devastation of cyclone Tracy in 1974. Thanks to Uncle Mark, we were able to be evacuated to Fremantle but we soon returned to Darwin and school. Not for long as the following year, we were off to Rostrevor College in Adelaide as borders. Mum and dad were going to move down later in 1976 as they had bought a house in the suburb of Athelstone, not far from the school.
Mum and dad did move down together with Aunty Angela and Uncle Otto and children. Aunty Rita and Uncle Joe and children followed some time later.
We had a good life in Adelaide where we lived for 11 years; although mum did not like the extreme cold of the Adelaide winter and longed to return to Darwin.
Mum and dad busied themselves with preserving food and making wine and bottles of pasta sauce for use later; traditional Italian things that were not readily accomplished in Darwin.
Mum and dad built a new house with stunning views of Adelaide while Terry and I studied hard and went on to university at the direction from dad who was resolute that we would not be tradesmen.
We returned to Darwin when we were finished with formal education and got on with the ups and downs of life.
Before long, I married Angela and Terry married Lisa and eventually grandchildren magically appeared. I don’t know how that happened.
Mum would be the greatest help to us and loved more than anything her grandchildren Jordan, Ryan, Messina, Ethan and Santo. In her last years, mum was particularly attached to her youngest grandson, Santo for whom I would have to provide constant updates on his latest achievements and milestones. I suspect that her illnesses had a lot to do with that and that her memory was fading.
Dad made herculean efforts in the final years to look after mum while he himself has had many health issues.
Mum was loved by all. The final proof was the constant vigil kept by the many visitors and her extended family in her last days with us.
Mum is greatly missed.
I thank my mother-in-law Ourania, who made possible visits to the hospice by my wife Angela and children Messina and Santo.
Mum especially loved the visits by all of her grandchildren.
My special thanks go to Aunty Franca, Aunty Gae, Aunty Angela, Aunty Rita, Uncle Benny and Cousin Ross who all spent extended time in vigil. Thank you also to members of the family and friends who were able to visit mum and to those who had her in their prays.
Thank you mum and dad.
May she rest in peace.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, on 18 March 2014 I asked a question in parliament of the Minister for Infrastructure. It said:
- In February this year, Mr Michael Halkitis wrote a letter to your department. In that letter, he stated when he was working at Elcho Island and was ordered by a building company to start demolishing a house. He said he and other labourers were directed to break asbestos with their bare hands. He went on to say he was not provided with any safety equipment or proper protective clothing. These are serious allegations. What has your department done in relation to these allegations and what has been the outcome of any investigation your department has held on this matter?
It is my understanding that the department answered and said there were no issues and they had investigated the matter.
Mr Halkitis came back to me with a statutory declaration from another person named Peter Kritikos, who is a carpenter. I will not use everybody’s name here, but I will read this out as I promised Michael I would raise it in parliament. Peter said:
- …
1. That I worked on the construction of the Milingimbi Health Clinic in the Northern Territory in or around August 2012 to in or around November 2012 in relation to the Northern Territory government tender T11-1129 Milingimbi-Construction of new Health Centre, which included labouring work for …
A company:
- 2. My duties included taking down and stripping off the roof and the walls of the old clinic building and I was also involved in the demolition of the old clinic building.
3. After the old clinic was stripped down my duties included the preparation of the steel beams for the new building that was to be built, which also included me helping the formwork prior to the concrete and other duties required for the preparation prior to the concrete pouring for the new building.
4. The concrete was subsequently poured for the building work and I subsequently returned back to Darwin during this period for around four weeks when the brick layers then did their work in building the walls, etcetera, and then I returned back to Milingimbi to perform cabinet-making duties, including putting the doors up, inserting the locks in the doors, kitchen work and vanities work in the toilet areas, etcetera.
5. When I was stripping away the asbestos off the walls of the old clinic building, I was using a chainsaw and I was not wearing protective gear or clothing as required. My employer … did not provide me with any and or all safety and regulator clothing and safety equipment to strip away the asbestos off the walls of the old clinic building.
6. There were four of us working in this process and Mr Michael Halkitis, also working with me, was using the mini-excavator and a bobcat to help bring down the structure of the old building.
7. On or around two weeks after we had started in bringing down the structure of the old building, two other persons, who I do not know, turned up with appropriate occupational and health and safety equipment and clothing to help us break down the asbestos and put the asbestos in plastic bags for around three of the old walls at the old clinic building.
8. The majority and the rest of the asbestos off the walls of the old clinic building was dumped at the Milingimbi rubbish dump by using …
The company’s:
… truck and equipment.
9. The other two workers of …
… were involved in loading the asbestos and other rubbish from the old building on to the truck and drove the truck with the loads, including the asbestos, to the Milingimbi rubbish dump.
10. Mr Michael Halkitis also witnessed these events.
It is signed Peter Kritikos, and it has the signature of Gabriel Patricia Chesher, Commissioner of Oaths.
I raised that for the Minister for Infrastructure. I understand it was investigated, but if another person comes along with the same story – I have heard there were two other people also willing to sign a statutory declaration as they believed the work practices that occurred were not satisfactory, and that asbestos cleaned from these buildings was dumped at the Milingimbi rubbish dump. It perhaps needs another investigation.
I do not think people would be writing a stat dec, knowing I would raise this in parliament, if they did not have a fair case regarding what happened. I will be asking the minister to kindly revisit this issue. Perhaps he could contact Mr Halkitis and Peter Kritikos and talk to them to find out what their concerns are.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Michael has been contacting me on and off for the last few months. I think he even went to the Ombudsman. I am not sure what the results of that hearing were. Regardless, if another person is willing to sign a stat dec stating concerns about asbestos at Milingimbi, the minister should have another look.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, there has been much adverse critical comment and very public discussion about the appointment of Denis Burke as Chair of the Development Consent Authority by the Minister for Lands, Planning and the Environment, Peter Chandler.
Last week during debate the minister attempted to justify his appointment of yet another CLP ‘old boy’ to a plum, well-paid and influential position. He said:
- I worked out what I needed, what this government needed and what the Northern Territory needed in regard to the experience required to do the job. I listed about five to eight ideas, or terms of reference. Then I judged each of those applications based on the terms of reference, and Denis Burke was a standout.
It is a pity the minister did not detail what those five to eight ideas or terms of reference – as he called them – were. It would be fascinating, I am sure. However, in the absence of anything substantial from the minister, and given this government’s track record, here are a few likely ideas he may have used.
1. Complete and arrogant disregard for the weight of public opinion, particularly if it is contrary to the CLP’s own agenda.
Such was the feeling of Territorians against Denis Burke that the CLP suffered an 11% swing against them and dwindled to just four seats in this Assembly. Denis Burke suffered the humiliation of losing his own seat of Brennan, with a swing of over 20%. That is something for you to emulate, current member for Brennan.
Incidentally, maybe you should have done a reference check with your colleague, the member for Port Darwin, John Elferink – at that time the member for Macdonnell – who publicly labelled Mr Burke as ‘arrogant’ in 2003.
2. Contempt for widely-acknowledged conventions and processes of good government.
In government Denis Burke vehemently opposed freedom of information legislation, so expect plenty of secretive behaviour in and around the DCA, not to mention an entire lack of consultation. That is exactly what the CLP government wants.
Denis Burke also probably gets a giant tick from our current Chief Minister for accusing the NT judiciary of being corrupt and, as Attorney-General, being found guilty of contempt of court. That is certainly a great recommendation and ticks yet another box.
3. A demonstrated ability to have massive conflicts of interest and not bat an eyelid.
We know from the federal register of lobbyists’ that Denis Burke was, and maybe still is, a lobbyist for a large development company, the main proponents of the Nightcliff island development opposed by so many in our community. Can the minister tell us whether Denis Burke is still a lobbyist and whether he is also a political donor to the CLP?
Try this for No 4:
4. A strong belief and commitment to massively unpopular CLP planning goals and ideas.
As far as the CLP is concerned, outdated and unpopular planning proposals must be preserved and implemented at all costs. Public opposition to them must be disregarded altogether. Damming the Elizabeth River is a prime example. It was alive, in one form or another, in Denis Burke’s time in government, and it has been resurrected by this CLP government in the face of overwhelming public opposition. No doubt it will continue to be supported by Denis Burke. Another important box ticked by the minister.
How is this for a possible No 5?
5. A strong team player in a board environment and a demonstrated background in planning.
Minister, is it true that Denis Burke was summarily sacked by his board and escorted to the door after he had cleared his desk? Can you inform parliament of his track record in planning, please, minister for Lands and Planning?
No 6 lastly, and possibly the most important box to tick here:
6. Shoring up your own position.
Minister for Education, you are failing spectacularly in all of your portfolio areas. You have slashed teaching and support positions. You do not even appear to know the extent of these cuts. You say 35 positions but your department’s own figures say 125 teaching positions have been lost. You have the reputation as a weak, incompetent Education minister who will not stand up in Cabinet for Education. Education outcomes are going backwards, none more so than in our remote communities.
In Lands and Planning you are pushing projects with little or no consultation: Nightcliff island, Glyde Point, developments in the rural area, and the list goes on and on.
Your appointment of Denis Burke to the top job in the DCA is the icing on the cake of incompetency.
In the Environment portfolio you seem intent on not only ignoring advocates such as the Environment Centre but also silencing them through the shameful withdrawal of funding. It is apparent you are a weak, incompetent minister who is out of his depth and failing in all portfolio areas – destined for the chop, I say.
The most likely replacement from that side would be the member for Drysdale, who is an intelligent, professional and competent individual; someone who, unfortunately, was a minister for only a week before being shuffled to the backbench by Adam Giles when he so ruthlessly deposed Terry Mills in such a disgraceful manner.
Minister, in order to shore up your own position, could it be that you thought you could gain favour with the member for Drysdale by employing her father-in-law, Denis Burke, as Chair of the DCA? I am sure the member for Drysdale would not be party to such a Machiavellian scheme. Can we be sure of your motives, minister?
Mr Deputy Speaker, in the interest of transparency, I call on the minister to publish his five to eight ideas or terms of reference, and for him to say, in some detail, how he believes Denis Burke was, as he said, ‘a standout’ in fulfilling each of them.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016