2015-08-25
Madam Speaker Purick took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received Message No 28 from His Honour the Administrator notifying assent to the bills passed at the June sittings. The message was dated 15 July 2015.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of two Year 5/6 classes from Berry Springs Primary School – you have come a long way – accompanied by Brianna Bibbs and Pip Norsworthy. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended that would prevent me from immediately moving a motion in the following terms of debate and decision by the Assembly ahead of all other business today:
That the Assembly requires the government to postpone any consideration of amendments to the planning scheme in the urban/peri-urban highlighted areas of the Litchfield subregion of the Darwin Regional Land Use Plan until:
Standing orders must be suspended to immediately consider this motion because first, last Friday a series of planning schedule amendments were advertised in the NT News that thick – three of those documents. As well, there was a second information day at Humpty Doo Village Green on Saturday regarding the Noonamah Ridge proposal. Then, last week, the Holtze Area Plan was released. Then the Planning Commission, in response to the member for Goyder’s comments, said that urban development in Holtze was inevitable.
The only reason these proposals are going ahead is because the government and the Planning Commission have deemed it should happen. We need to discuss this matter urgently, as these developments have the potential to put over 70 000 people in the rural area and it will mean a large part of the rural area will become urbanised. If this goes ahead it will mean land that should be developed for rural development will become suburbs, and the opportunity for families to buy a rural block will fade. If this goes ahead it will mean Weddell will not happen for many years. If this goes ahead, we will have suburban sprawl into the rural area, not a well-designed and planned city such as Weddell should be.
If this is not raised now, what other opportunity will I have to ask how this development got to this stage in the first place, when so many people opposed urban and peri-urban development?
This debate is needed to show Territorians how, under this government, the planning system operates. This will show how the people who live in the rural area are not supported by the government. The government does not care about them; it only cares about big landowners, some whom donate to the CLP. The fallacy about consultation, more affordable housing and why the government says it is too expensive to proceed with Weddell will be shown in this debate. Rural people see the rural area being urbanised with the blessing of the Planning minister and the rest of the government, because they are in it too.
This is an opportunity to support sensible development in the rural area based on the vision the government promised before the election. This debate has to happen now before it is too late. This debate needs to come on now because the applications are in to develop land, which will probably go before the DCA before the next sittings of parliament. That is why I want to suspend standing orders; this is urgent.
Madam Speaker, I put the question.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I understand the member’s enthusiasm for the motion he has presented to the House. I also note that the member has oft said that this is a place of debate, yet we find him trying to put the question at the first opportunity, believing he will have the numbers in this House. He may well have those numbers, but the member has lectured us long and hard about the processes and probity of this House.
I remind you with all caution and respect, Madam Speaker, to be cautious about using your Speakership to overturn the normal processes of this House – we have seen that exercised in this place before – which places you in an invidious situation.
The processes he has described today mean that he will effectively want something passed through this House which will stop a process of government. He says it is urgent. I ask honourable members, is it so urgent that we need to suspend the standing orders of this place? He can give notice of a general business motion tomorrow at 2 pm this afternoon, so he can introduce the motion and debate it tomorrow evening. None of the processes he has described would move forward sufficiently to justify the suspension of standing orders in this place.
If this place is to be elevated in the way the member opposite has said it should be and be seen as a place of integrity, then surely the integrity of following the standard processes of this place should be foremost in the member’s mind – indeed all members’ minds. I ask all members to turn their minds to the time when they said that government uses its numbers horribly and pushes things through that they do not like. He now thinks to himself that if he has the capacity to maintain that position, the rules have changed and it suits them now.
I presume that part of the process of this place is not to entrap each other. You would think that would be the policy of this place. The member for Nelson has often railed against entrapment in this House. We had no indication of this motion being brought before the House today and that this would be introduced by the member for Nelson and, I presume, the people who support him.
This will become a place where you see reaction and response rather than considered outcomes, as a result of negotiating positions before we walk in here. The risk you embrace when you go down that path is that if we stuff up on the floor without talking to each other, naturally the consequence which flows is that the governance of the Northern Territory will become more difficult because we will get results from negotiating things on the floor instead of well in advance.
I acknowledged from the outset that when we went into minority government there would be challenges for government in this House. We accept that, and as a consequence I have contacted every Independent as well as opposition members on all bills and matters before the House. This was done in good time to offer briefings and conversations with those members with all courtesy and respect that should be afforded all members of parliament. It saddens me, however, that that will not be reflected by the members opposite.
We have to start thinking seriously about how we present ourselves to the public, as I have so often counselled in this House, because it is not about just this room, the stunts we can pull and the things we can do.
There is nothing in this motion that strikes me as being particularly urgent that qualifies this dramatic step of suspending standing orders so we can push this through. There is nothing in the time lines of those matters advertised in the public domain that says those things will be dealt with before this House can deal with a motion through the normal order of business.
Therefore, Madam Speaker, it does not qualify to be a matter that needs to be dealt with on urgency and requires the suspension of standing orders. However, I suspect what we see here today is a straightforward test of the numbers.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, if the majority of members of this House want to debate something then that is the way it should be. I have listened carefully to the words of the Leader of Government Business and he has not provided any points except that he has lost control of the floor of this House. On the three-year anniversary of the CLP government coming into office, Gerry Wood is taking control of parliament to talk about a rural planning issue, which is a consequence of minority government.
The Chief Minister, only yesterday, claimed it is business as usual. It is not. In your arrogance not only have you stopped listening to everyday Territorians, you have failed to heed the warnings of minority government.
Therefore, we are in a situation on the first sitting day of this parliament where an important issue cannot wait, for the reasons the member for Nelson has outlined. It cannot wait until GBD tomorrow night because we have a limited time frame within General Business Day, during which it is possible for the government to talk the clock down, which means we do not take a vote. The proposal of putting 70 000 people into our rural area, changing our city and the Top End forever, is a serious and important issue.
Madam Speaker, the opposition supports the motion to suspend standing orders.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the shadow minister for her support. I do not generally go back on what has happened in the past, but I remember a motion that was passed in this parliament asking for an inquiry into Foundation 51 to look at donations and whether they affected policy. That was passed by this parliament and overturned by what I call an arrogant government which promised it would go ahead with that.
The other factor in this is I have debated this uphill and downhill. I have brought this debate before this parliament and I have been rolled. The government knows about this type of debate. I do not have to tell them about it again. I have no shame in saying this is an opportunity for me and my fellow rural members to put to the government that it is not doing the right thing.
It is urgent, as I said, because these planning scheme amendments will go before the DCA in about a month’s time. This is my last opportunity to say to this parliament that your processes for development of the rural area have been thwarted with lack of real consultation …
Mr Tollner: Rubbish!
Mr WOOD: I will give you the rubbish in a minute; you will get it, skip bin and all.
It is essential that this parliament debates something that has the potential to put 70 000 people into the rural area. It is essential to say to the government that type of population growth should be in Weddell.
This debate will not be just about the problems we have; it will be saying that we need development, but development the right way. It will not be a discussion just about the processes; it will be putting forward a positive analysis of what is happening and hope that the government at least listens to what we are saying.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly requires the government to postpone any consideration of amendments to the planning scheme in the urban/peri-urban highlighted areas of the Litchfield subregion of the Darwin Regional Land Use Plan until:
I am not talking about development in general in the greater Darwin area; I am specifying three areas: Noonamah Hughes, the Noonamah Ridge and the Holtze areas. They can still be developed today. This is not stopping development; they can be developed under the existing zones. The change will mean a major change to those areas so it is only specific to those areas.
This debate is about the fact there was no real consultation with the community. I believe the greater Darwin plan was predetermined by the government and the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission did not properly consult the community and there has been a perceived conflict of interest with the Planning Commissioner.
Let us talk about lack of real consultation. The first plan was brought out for comment in late December 2013 and was an A4 sheet. It basically showed people what the Planning Commission was thinking of, and that was it. Unfortunately it was another document that was issued just before Christmas, with people getting ready for the end of school and heading off for Christmas holidays. Thankfully the minister gave an extension a day before the original extension was to be closed. So as much as it was good to have, it did not help those who had to rush to put in a submission.
The document was an A4 sheet of paper printed on both sides. The Planning Commission held no meetings anywhere. Please note that the map had two changes from the existing Litchfield plan. There was a peri-urban and urban development in the Holtze/Howard Springs area which was meant to have 9500 dwellings, roughly for 36 000 people and there was the peri-urban development in the Hughes/Noonamah area.
I held four meetings to explain what was in the document and the existing plan, and compared them so people could be informed of what the changes meant. The meetings were held at Holtze, Howard Springs, Girraween and Humpty Doo.
The Planning Commission held no public meetings, nor did the department, even though the residents would have been forgiven for thinking the A4 sheet was just a discussion paper or been a smokescreen for what had already happened or decided by the government.
On the weekend before the Freds Pass Show, the then minister for Planning and the Chief Minister announced that Palmerston was the new growth area. We would have Palmerston North where the new hospital was to be built. They stood in front of the television cameras and held up a map and a picture which showed the whole area of Holtze and Howard Springs under suburban development. When I asked if I could get a copy, I was refused. I had to go the ABC to get a copy. Open and transparent government?
I then went to a briefing about land development in the rural area and was shown this map on their PowerPoint presentation. Again I spoke to the department and asked whether I could get a copy of the PowerPoint presentation. When I received the PowerPoint presentation, all of the suburban areas were greened out. You have to wonder what the point of consultation was if the government had decided and had made a public announcement that this would happen.
Let us look at the proposal: no consultation, 9500 dwellings and the plan was deliberately held back from the community. This was a classic example of a government making mockery of any possible consultative planning process.
Before the draft plan was to be released in response to comments from a public announcement, which advised people in Howard Springs and Holtze, one got the opinion they did not care about community consultation and there would be a Palmerston North. People complained and signed a petition. There were 1000 signatures on that petition opposing urbanisation of the rural area. When the Planning Commission advertised its draft proposal at the Royal Darwin Show there were no changes to the plan at all. In fact, the Planning Commission added a new peri-urban and urban development called Noonamah Ridge, and a couple of activity centres – that has to be one of the dopiest names I have ever seen. It is a town or it is a village activity centre. They wanted to turn the Howard Springs forestry land into an activity centre. These changes were shown in the second draft plan which was released in time for the Royal Darwin Show.
The Planning Commission said it would consult and employed Michels Warren Munday to develop a community consultation report. The consultation process involved face-to-face meetings and briefings, the Royal Darwin Show display, displays at shopping centres, public notices, media releases, fact sheets, a website, a survey and e-mails to those who made submissions previously. The online survey received 11 responses. There were no public meetings and no public workshops. The information days were the closest anyone got to having a meeting. These information days were three hours at Humpty Doo supermarket, three hours at the Howard Springs supermarket and five hours at the Coolalinga Markets for one day only. Where is the real community consultation?
I asked a developer not so long ago, ‘Why haven’t you had a public meeting to discuss your proposals?’ He just said, ‘Tomatoes’. Sometimes you have to face a few tomatoes in this world. If you do you will probably get much more support for what you are doing.
The company conducting the survey said it used the new IAAP method of engagement, which is the latest way of engaging with people. Whilst I understand that is probably very nice, I am not sure it is the way you deal with major planning issues which are complex and require much more work than just holding an information session. The IAAP is the International Association of Public Participation. Whilst that might sound good, I do not believe it is the way to consult on matters in the rural area.
Regarding the greater Darwin plan, obviously consultation failed or the Planning Commission ignored the findings, as the plan does not reflect the outcome of these consultations. In the end, the Planning Commission has shown it had doubts about consultation because the government has recently decided to conduct a survey where a South Australian company asked people – I do not know if it is just in the rural area – if they supported small blocks in the area. If you believe there was consultation why has the government spent money on a survey about small blocks after it has approved the greater Darwin plan? We have not been told about these surveys or who asked for them to be done, what the questions were, who wrote the questions, how much it cost, how many focus groups were there and whether it was true that people were not allowed to say what happened in the focus groups. There was a cash prize incentive to go to the meetings. What was the result of the meetings?
I can share with you the three surveys which were done, one in Holtze, one in Bees Creek and one at Acacia Hills. They, without any doubt, showed the majority of people wanted Weddell to be built and did not want small blocks, at least under 1 ha. Yet those surveys have been basically ignored.
I go back to Holtze. In the meantime a notice of intent fell of the back of a truck showing some people’s residences in the Holtze area were to become Service Commercial. In other words, residential blocks were to be rezoned to commercial. They could have had a container shed or a car wash next to them. Someone decided those residences would become Service Commercial. This was all done before the Planning Commission held any public meetings with people in Holtze. It happened by accident.
I held a couple of public meetings in Holtze. Finally the people in Holtze decided to organise themselves and brought the Planning Commission, kicking and screaming, to a public meeting. At least they had a partial win with that. The Service Commercial area has been scrapped and the road has been moved 150 m away from people’s houses. Why has it taken such an effort to get the Planning Commission or the department to talk to the people directly? I do not know.
The Planning Commission made some changes, but it showed how predetermined the decision was. When the member for Goyder raised the issue of suburban development near the hospital recently, the chairman said the urban development in the Holtze area was inevitable. I do not think anyone is saying there should not be suburban development next to the hospital, but the department has shown this area to have 1800 residential blocks. That is slightly different to a small development next to the hospital.
Discussion with the community about how they see the future of the rural area has been missing from this whole process, as well as discussion about the reasons behind our existing plans and other options which could be investigated, such as workshops so people have ownership of their plan. This has been a one-sided debate between the Planning Commission, the government and the handful of landowners with a predetermined outcome. The only involvement people will have with this development will include looking at the plans and turning up at a DCA meeting. They will get five or 10 minutes to put forward their point of view.
Why do I say the Planning Commission is flawed? I have asked here before whether you can have a Planning Commission without planners. This Planning Commission was set up without planners running the show. I believe it was a deliberate ploy by the government. Putting the present commissioner – who had strong political links with the government, something they did with other important positions of influence in our community – in control was the wrong way to go. That is not to say this person does not have qualifications and is not capable of being on the Planning Commission, but the government leaves itself open by putting people of their own ilk in positions which should be seen to be independent not only in this position, but in others.
A Planning Commission should have independent planners and take the lead role; no one should have any political affiliations. It should not only be independent, but be seen to be independent. The future structure of the NT Planning Commission needs to be debated in this House, but not today. A future Planning Commission would not be afraid to talk directly to people, conduct workshops, provide options and involve people in a mature discussion. It needs people who understand rural people, not just the rural developers. A future Planning Commission should not have the seat on the EPA and the chairperson of the EPA should not have a seat on the Planning Commission.
I believe the advertisements in the paper on Friday are the end result of a process that was predetermined. I remember trying to put forward a motion in parliament asking for an inquiry into Foundation 51 to see whether political donations affected decisions. That was knocked back. There is nothing wrong with developers donating to parties in the NT; that is perfectly legal in the Northern Territory. The question I have is about the government. Have those donations clouded your decision to approve all this urban and peri-urban development? Have you declared a possible conflict of interest if the CLP government received funds from a developer and made a decision in favour of the developer?
I am not the only one who reckons this process is suss. The member for Goyder and I recently received a letter from a rural resident. I will not include all the names, but you will get the gist of what this person was saying:
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I do not mean to interrupt; I just want to see a copy of this motion as required by standing orders, if we have a copy to circulate.
Madam SPEAKER: The member for Nelson will provide a copy to members.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, I just amended that. What I read is not exactly what is here. I am adding the word ‘highlighted’. It is what I read out but it was not on that copy.
I read from that letter again:
He went on to say:
The writer of this letter went on to mention a number of other people who I will not mention here. He is concerned about a number of them being affiliated with the Urban Institute of Australia. The Urban Institute of Australia claims:
The letter continues:
That letter says it all.
I raise the issue of conflict of interest. I am not saying that anyone has done anything unlawful. I have fought against the exemptions, for instance, to conflict of interest in the Planning Act, but the government persevered and that stayed in the act. I will be considering putting changes, as I said, to the act at a later date.
There is a conflict of interest that needs to be raised, one that highlights the problem within the government. Conflict of interest can be actual, perceived or potential. The Planning Commissioner was once a business partner in Earl James & Associates. The writer of the letter noted the same thing.
As the writer said, a plan was drawn up some years ago by Earl James & Associates for the Noonamah/Hughes region. I have a copy. This plan is nearly exactly the same as the plan used on the first Darwin Regional Land Use Plan, the draft land use plan, the final plan and the amended plan. Surely people would ask if there is a conflict of interest – at least a perceived conflict of interest – that should have been clearly identified when this part of the plan was approved?
Why is the plan the same? Why did it not change even though many people did not support urban/peri-urban development? Why is the plan in the Darwin Land Use Plan nearly the same as the plan drawn up by Earl James & Associates? It was an attempt for land near Noonamah to be rezoned to 0.4 ha blocks, which is not permitted in the rural area. That was done in 2010. Earl James then represented a client and in their submission said:
It went on to talk about considerable support which was actually from the department. There has been a push for some time by Earl James & Associates to have blocks smaller than 1 ha in the rural area. The concept of peri-urban and urban destroys zoning that differentiates between urban and rural.
Conflict of interest does not mean anything is wrong. I am not saying anybody has done anything wrong. In my job I have to declare a conflict of interest even when there is no real conflict of interest. I have to say there could be a perceived conflict of interest.
In this case that should have been declared. Although, if there was a perceived conflict of interest, does this mean the development of this area should be re-evaluated? It should be and not just in this area, because there are other things that concern me.
If you read through these plans, you will see in the first plan there was no such place as Noonamah Ridge. No one could comment because they did not know it was there. All of a sudden it turned up in the draft plan. Noonamah Ridge is a real estate name, not a geographical name. The real name is Lloyd Creek but the independent Planning Commission decided to call it Noonamah Ridge in its draft plan. Why? It is meant to be independent. Surely it would call it Lloyd Creek. It is not on the side of any particular developer. Did the company speak to the Planning Commission? They are entitled to. What was the outcome of those discussions? How did this name appear on the draft plan?
If the Planning Commission had been looking at developing the area based on an independent assessment of the area – and it might have thought it was a good area for peri-urban – then surely it would have retained the name Lloyd Creek to show it was not influenced by the developers of Noonamah Ridge? I am interested to know what those discussions were and what was agreed to.
In summary, a Holtze urban/peri-urban plan has been approved by the Chief Minister and the minister for Planning, without consultation, which was announced in May 2013. Development of Holtze, regardless of what we say, is now regarded as inevitable. What faith can people have in consultation if someone says development in their area is inevitable? Where is the room for discussion? No one is Holtze is saying there should not be development; they all support the hospital. They do not support the rural area being turned into a Palmerston North suburb based on the whims of somebody in government. We are not short of land.
There is a peri-urban area at Noonamah Ridge, land that is Lloyd Creek. Does the government know of any face-to-face consultation with the residents on Redcliffe Road at Acacia? I attended a meeting at the Acacia Hills Volunteer Fire Brigade where about 50 people turned up. About 45 of those people said, ‘No we do not want that development to occur; we want it to stay as it is.’ It did not matter; it is in the plan now and we have already had the second stage discussions about what will be there.
The Hughes/Noonamah development, not permitted previously, is now announced as full steam ahead. There are no changes from the first plan. They have changed the name to East Weddell. It will still have 27 000 people in the rural area.
This debate is not against progress. People in the rural area are not against progress, but they want progress that reflects the values of the rural area. They want a rural area that is not just a real estate spin word that is used now such as, ‘We are going to develop a country-like subdivision’. People can see right through that and it is not rural.
It is hard for governments and Planning Commissions to understand – because they are all based in Darwin – that rural living is a legitimate option to urban living. People want a government to stick to its promises; they want Weddell built.
I will raise this document again and again. This is a CLP document from before the last election. This map does not show Noonamah/Hughes, Holtze or Noonamah Ridge as urban. It shows it as rural and it shows Weddell. This is what you went to – you can call it your discussion paper.
I stood in this parliament and supported this against the Labor version because I thought it was a better document. All of a sudden I am regarded as the enemy for opposing what is before us today. I am not against Hughes/Noonamah being developed. The member for Goyder and I issued a document in opposition to the Labor Party’s plans, and we showed Hughes and Noonamah being developed.
The size of what has been put forward is the problem. Hughes could have a nice little district centre around the airstrip; I do not have a problem with that. However, pick up the documents and you will find we are talking about over 4800 m2 blocks. We are talking about a huge number of people in that area. The population of Humpty Doo, which is a district centre, would be lucky to be 500. It probably would not even be that because the government has not developed the residential area.
Noonamah should be developed. It is perfect; it is opposite Weddell. But it needs to be developed properly with a plan that will make sense and is about the urban area not being the majority of development in that area but subservient – it serves the rural area. The development I have seen in the plans is urban development. Yes, there are some blocks that are rural, but the majority of people living in this area will be living on urban blocks.
I make it clear because the minister will probably have a ping at me about the development. I supported and have always supported this plan. The member for Goyder and I have tried to be positive and proactive in saying we are not against development. But all of a sudden, we have foisted on us 70 000 people – that is the potential – at least. That is not rural development; that is city development. That is the responsibility of the government, not the responsibility of a few people who own large blocks of land. When you talk about that kind of population, you need a government with a vision, which employs people who can draw up a visionary plan for a city.
The next city is Weddell, as you promised. What is happening? You are saying, ‘Too hard, cannot build Weddell’. Your excuse is, ‘We will get someone else to do it; we will get private industry to build it.’ There is nothing wrong with private industry building Weddell. You set up the plan; they build the infrastructure.
The government says it does not have enough money. I say you have enough money. You even have a Growing the North development loan. Building Weddell is about growing the north. People will need a place to live. You will get your money back by selling parcels of land to developers. That is how Palmerston was developed; it has been done before.
Do you mean to say that, in the end, it will make a difference whether a person buys a block of land in the private Weddell development, a Noonamah or Hughes development or an Intrapac development? They all need to provide infrastructure. When it comes to the crunch, the cost of that land will be reflected in how much the infrastructure cost to build.
I do not see the role of developers being to design a city; that is the role of the government. I see the role of developers as filling in the city. We have this upside down and back to front.
As I said, this is not anti-development. We need appropriate development. I do not mention myself much because I own a five-acre block. But I want to give families an opportunity to buy a proper rural block, not a country-style block, so they can raise a family with some fresh air, blue sky, trees, a chook or two and a kangaroo. That is what this is all about. It is not saying we should not develop or those landowners should not be entitled to develop. The extent to which this development is going far exceeds what people expect in the rural area.
I am happy to support development in Hughes, Noonamah and appropriate places like Lloyd Creek. Those plans have been out for many years and the member for Goyder and I have put our names on documents, which shows we support them.
This development is over the top. This development was predetermined because no matter how many people signed petitions and had concerns, nothing changed. We need to go back to square one. We need to talk to the people and give them options. We need to conduct an independent assessment of these areas, and we might come up with a good compromise.
Madam Speaker, I am not putting forward this proposal as a negative, but so these parcels of land can be developed. They should be developed in consultation with the community. If you do that you will have a far better chance of getting support for development in the rural area. I will leave you with one thing: the priority is that if you want more urban development, develop Weddell. That way we would not have this problem.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I understand that Paul and Henry Archibald are in the gallery, the member for Nightcliff’s family. Welcome to Parliament House.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker – bring your family to work day.
I listened to the points the member for Nelson raised; this is a very serious issue. The government is changing the face of our Top End, city and rural area forever. People are passionate about where they live and they choose a lifestyle. Do they want to live in the inner city, in a unit with no palm fronds and lots of restaurants nearby? Do they want to live in the suburbs with a bit of space? Or do they want to live in the rural area, where they can live a comfortable lifestyle in our tropical north with some space around them?
The member for Nelson made a number of points and gave details about how the government has ignored the community and not listened to its concerns. That is a broader issues of why it is now a minority government. This is a serious issue to many people, yet the government’s original planning notices over Christmas – no meetings just simply making a mockery of the process – showed it is not listening to Territorians. It has shown that it did not listen to my community about a planning proposal in the harbour off the coast of Nightcliff. The member for Fong Lim’s speech on that issue, talking about Peter Pan and Tinker Bell for more than 20 minutes, highlighted how arrogant they are.
Today as an opposition we support this motion moved by the member for Nelson on the very important matter of amendments to the planning scheme in the Litchfield area. The member for Nelson and other members of this House have had long-standing interests in service delivery, appropriate planning and maintaining amenity and lifestyles for the residents of the Litchfield area. We also know that the member for Goyder is a long-term advocate of appropriate planning and amenity for those residents who choose to live in the rural area. That is the point this government does not understand: people want different lifestyle choices. Some people want to live in the rural area and do not want to see the rural area carved up.
Today’s motion is about good policy planning and the practice in the Litchfield subregion of the Darwin Regional Land Use Plan. Planning is a science. It is mapped out, worked out and consulted; it is not ad hoc. When ad hoc planning decisions are made they generally cause upset for the community, including traffic flow and access issues. Inappropriate development or ad hoc planning decisions cause issues around education, services and health services.
Central to the motion is a compelling focus on consultation with the community and local residents about important planning issues that impact on their daily lives. The government members, on this issue, have had their heads in the sand. They do not live rural; they do not care. That is not why governments are there. Governments are there for all community members, whether they are in Alice Springs, remote parts of the Territory or the Top End.
Like people elsewhere in the Territory, the residents of the Litchfield region simply want to be properly consulted on changes planned for their community and how they will impact on dwelling density, lifestyle, amenity and environmental and heritage values. Is that too much to ask? I do not think it is, but we have a government which refuses to listen, either through arrogance, incompetence or design. Only when pressured by residents and their local members will the government occasionally listen to community concerns about planning. It is only if its numbers are in doubt that it seems to listen.
There are concrete examples in the Litchfield area that illustrate this point. Not long ago, without consulting the residents of Holtze, the government issued a notice of intent concerning land use in the area. The notice said the establishment of urban areas to the north of the Stuart Highway will represent a significant alteration of land use away from predominantly rural lifestyle community living, and existing residents may voluntarily move away from the area.
This is an example of the CLP making planning matter decisions, County Liberal style, ‘Like it or lump it. If you do not like the way we are moving, changing the rural area, move on.’ Territorians are speaking; they are not going to move on or give in to your arrogance.
You can understand why local residents and their parliamentary representatives, who are representing the community that elected them, are furious about the lack of consultation on land use proposals that would impact greatly on their lifestyle and amenity of locality.
The ABC has reported:
Following concerted community action by concerned residents, supported by the members for Nelson and Goyder, some recent concessions have been made concerning the government’s plans for Holtze, but the plan needs more work because the future remains uncertain. Their concerted efforts have led to some significant changes to the government’s plans, but the future is still not certain.
The government’s handling of recent planning issues in Holtze illustrates why the member for Nelson has proposed that a new Litchfield Land Use Objectives Plan is agreed to by this Assembly before any further amendments to the planning scheme for the area are considered. A reccurring consideration is the CLP’s refusal to listen to legitimate community concerns about planning decisions. I come back to the point. Unless you need the support, you do not want to listen; you keep rushing things out over Christmas holidays without talking to people. You need to stop and listen.
The controversial subdivision proposal on Lowther Road, Bees Creek, has also brought planning issues in the Litchfield area into sharp focus, a reoccurring theme. Again the strong voices of local residents and members were essential to reversing the decision of the Planning minister, who does not want listen. As reported by the NT News, local resident, Christine Osborne, summed up the community’s frustration. She said:
Something you would understand, Madam Speaker:
She went on to say that:
The member for Goyder expressed her frustration at the Planning minister’s reluctance to listen to concerns, as the NT News quoted:
How can you not hear? This is our local media. These are members of your own side expressing their frustration at the arrogance of your government making decisions without consulting. The refusal of the Planning minister to listen has placed your government in a minority government, yet the Chief Minister continues to support him. The members who have left your side gave you opportunities. The member for Goyder has spoken out against these planning decisions. She FOI’d. It was quite clear she was upset, yet in your arrogance you refused to listen. You keep backing the Planning minister; you keep supporting him. You have no one to blame but yourself for being in this situation.
Finally, under the simple pressures of numbers the Minister for Lands and Planning has made a concession. Honourable members would have seen reports in yesterday’s NT News about a deferral of a decision on the Lowther Road development. It is instructive and worth quoting because it is directly relevant to the motion we are debating and brings the Litchfield’s Sub-Regional Land Use Plan into clear focus:
We are talking about changing the face of the rural area.
This government cannot be trusted on planning issues and that is why it is important for this House to support the motion moved by the member for Nelson today. We are talking specifically about the Litchfield and rural area, but we could outline decisions across the Territory this government has taken and not listened to Territorians about. That was obvious in my electorate where we had hundreds of people rally about a 98 ha lease being issued for part of our harbour. Yet to date I still have not received an explanation from the government.
Today we are focused on the Litchfield area. The opposition will be offering its support to this motion as this government cannot be trusted. Given the history of complacency, I can appreciate the member for Goyder’s lack of confidence in the Planning Commissioner. Other broader issues have also eroded public confidence in the government’s handling of planning issues and its constant failure to listen to legitimate community concerns.
I have previously expressed my concerns in this parliament about the Planning minister’s incredible admission of how he runs his office. When the minister conceded that he ran his office on a cash-for-access basis he should never have been reappointed to the Cabinet, let alone to the sensitive Lands and Planning portfolio. This minister said on the public record, ‘Your donation will open my door’. How can the minister make an admission like that yet be reappointed to the Cabinet and be placed in the position of Planning minister?
Planning shapes our cities and our Territory. It is one of the most sensitive portfolios. Decisions made by this Assembly will impact the Territory forever. Once we carve up the rural area it is gone; there is no going back. We must preserve the rural area. We need to see a beautiful tropical north – cities surrounded by rural living. People want to come to the Territory and raise their families here living a Territory lifestyle, and living in the rural area is as about as close as you get.
I am constantly approached by members of the public who are dismayed and disappointed about the minister’s cash for access admission. I have been doorknocking, enjoying this beautiful Dry Season weather, as I am sure many members of this parliament have, and the number one issue raised with me is planning and the incompetence of minister Tollner. Under these circumstances, how can you expect to have credibility with the public for decisions you make as Planning minister? The Chief Minister is in charge of Cabinet and has appointed the person to that position, so he cannot turn a blind eye to this.
Confidence in the Territory’s planning system has been eroded by political appointments to key statutory positions, something the member for Nelson touched on. These appointments have caused grave community concern about transparency and accountability in the planning process. While not exhaustive, these appointments include: the former CLP Chief Minister Denis Burke as Chair of the Development Consent Authority; a former federal Liberal member and President of the CLP, Gary Nairn, as Chairman of the Planning Commission; and Graeme Lewis, Director of Foundation 51, former CLP Treasurer and member of the CLP Management Committee appointed by the Chief Minister as Chair of the Land Development Corporation.
This government does not seem to understand that these political appointments erode confidence in our planning system. The appointment of those people, whilst they may have experience, is eroding public confidence. We have reached the point where residents of the Litchfield area, their parliamentary representatives and members of this House no longer have confidence in the government’s management of planning issues in the Litchfield subregion of the Darwin Regional Land Use Plan.
The member for Nelson’s motion is to elevate proper consultation to its rightful place in the planning process, with a proper and independent consultation process completed for that part of the Darwin Regional Land Use Plan which affects the Litchfield Sub-Regional Land Use Plan. A draft report would be put out for public comment. A final report, which includes a new Litchfield Land Objective Plan, is to be considered by the Legislative Assembly.
I am sure the members for Nelson and Goyder, based on their local knowledge, will have some informative views on how the consultations can be designed to maximise the public exposure to the draft plan and obtain the genuine views of residents, not just the six or 11 who completed online surveys.
The opposition has listened to the legitimate concerns of rural residents, and the members of the rural area are fighting to preserve a lifestyle. This government is not doing the right thing. We have debated planning issues before and it has not listened. It therefore finds itself being a minority government. The Chief Minister yesterday said it is business as usual. Maybe what has occurred in this Assembly this morning will make him realise it is not business as usual. Territory elected representatives will stand up for their communities, as we are seeing today.
Madam Speaker, the Labor opposition supports this motion.
Mr TOLLNER (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, the government will not support this motion. The government has gone to every effort to consult …
Ms Fyles: Oh, rubbish!
Mr TOLLNER: I did not even get that out. Jumping the gun.
The government has gone to every effort to consult about development in the rural area.
I am aware, Madam Speaker, that it was you, as the shadow Lands and Planning spokesperson, who was involved in the creation of the document the member for Nelson is happy to show around, which is the Planning for Greater Darwin document we took to the last election. It is fair to say that on winning the last election the government had a mandate to implement this Planning for Greater Darwin plan we introduced. We did not; we entered into further consultation.
There have been some minor changes in relation to Planning for Greater Darwin that we took to the election. Most notably was the weir on Elizabeth River which, in my view, would have allowed for faster development of the township of Weddell ...
Mr Wood: That is why you are not building it.
Mr TOLLNER: Member for Nelson, it adds some complications to the development of Weddell.
However, we have listened to people who had concerns about damming the Elizabeth River and creating a lake for the township of Weddell, and have taken it off the table.
I am somewhat bemused by the member for Nelson’s motion today because no member of this parliament has been consulted about development in the rural area more than the member for Nelson. More often than not, the member for Nelson has been listened to and his views taken into account.
This is not about a lack of consultation; it is about the fact we are consulting. We are getting out there and the Planning Commission is working hard to consult with residents, especially in the rural community. For the record, the Planning Commission has been providing information on the show circuit and at pretty much any large public gathering. Those on the commission have gone out of their way to encourage forums for discussion on planning matters. They have also gone out of their way to hold pub and town hall meetings with residents in the rural area, and to doorknock and talk directly to residents. Much of that approved funding for the Planning Commission has been used not just to do that but to employ expert market research organisations to telephone and ask people’s views on how they see the rural area developing, as well as creating focus groups and sitting down with people to talk to them. We have gone to extraordinary lengths to consult with people and understand their mood for development. The work of Gary Nairn and the Planning Commission has been first class in relation to that and welcomed by people in the rural area.
Today, before anybody knew this debate was coming on, the Holtze Residents Group issued a media release. This is what it has to say:
The media release the Holtze Residents Group issued this morning ...
Mr Wood: Borrowed from mine; they asked me.
Mr TOLLNER: Oh, okay. I note the member for Nelson likes to interject. The member for Nelson says they copied his media release. If they copied his media release why is he here now banging on saying the Planning Commission does not consult? What matters to the member for Nelson is that everybody else’s views are somewhat discounted and his views become the most important and the only ones to be taken into account.
Mr Wood: Rubbish!
Mr TOLLNER: That is the reality, member for Nelson.
Mr Wood: You would not know what reality was if you tripped over it.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, you have the call.
Mr TOLLNER: I know, Madam Speaker. People re interjecting; I am just waiting for that to cease.
As I said, the Planning Commission has been going out of its way to consult and make sure residents of the rural area are brought in on discussions at every stage. Why is this? I announced when I came into this job in February this year that I was interested in getting public input at the very front of the process. Rather than public input happening solely with the Development Consent Authority, which was the only time, under the previous regimes, where public input was required at the development consent stage, my view is that the public should be involved much earlier in the process at the planning stage. What is the point of people turning up to a Development Consent Authority hearing if the planning has already taken place to allow certain types of development?
My view and the view of this government, which we took to the election, was that the public involvement had to be brought forward to the planning stage. In that regard, I have made sure the Planning Commission is properly resourced. As Treasurer, I have taken this role on to make sure they have the funds and resources required to carry out deep and detailed consultation to make sure the whole community’s view is taken into account.
What offends the member for Nelson so much is he does not really want the whole community view taken into account. He is only interested in those noisy splinter elements of the community. He does not want the Planning Commission to be doing market research, telephone polling, running focus groups or to be doorknocking. He wants his view and his view only to be the view that works.
It is contradictory in some regard, Madam Speaker, because a few weeks ago, as you and the members for Nelson and Daly know, I wrote to the three members who represent the rural area and asked them to join a committee called the Rural Development Review Committee. Currently the way things operate, when rezoning or subdivision applications are made, they generally go to the Development Consent Authority. As I said, under the new regime, I want all of those applications to go directly to the Planning Commission so it can run the public consultation. But as the regime stands, the Development Consent Authority still has a large role to play in the approval of subdivisions and rezonings. In the future, the Planning Commission will take over responsibility for that.
My view, given the amount of noise coming particularly from the member for Nelson and in some regard the member for Goyder, it was appropriate that we put a decision maker or another process in place to take on board their view specifically. So I asked them to review decisions that come from the Development Consent Authority or the Planning Commission prior to those decisions coming to the minister for approval or rejection. That is because I am very keen to understand exactly the views of our elected members in the rural area in relation to development.
I was somewhat stunned when that proposal was rejected because these people seem to have big voices when it comes to how the rural area is developed but they refuse to take an active role in the decision-making process. To me, that is somewhat shameful and hypocritical. To sit there and say, ‘Oh, no, we are opposed to this, we are opposed to that’, but not take on the offer to do something about it, I find is hypocritical and shameful. I am disappointed that the members for Nelson, Goyder and Daly have not taken up that offer. I understand that the member for Daly is a very busy minister. He has many responsibilities. He also sits on a couple of committees of this parliament, and for him to find the time to engage in another process would have been extraordinarily difficult. He assured me that if the other members from the rural area were to agree to it, he would have played ball and involved himself in that committee.
I find it highly disappointing that within less than a week of rejecting my offer to take an active role in the approval or rejection of proposals for development in the rural area, we now have to come to this. We know what this is about. This is nothing to do with planning in the rural area. Yes, it is a great drum for the member for Nelson to jump up and bang on about, but this is about testing the minority government. That is what this is about, right from the word go, with no notice to the government or anybody that this motion was coming on. Everybody is scrambling around to try to find out exactly what the member for Nelson is banging on about.
The member for Nelson comes out with some of the most bizarre criticisms such as, ‘There are no town planners on the Planning Commission’. Well, member for Nelson, the Planning Commission is a board. All of the town planners and people involved in the planning agency at the Department of Lands and Planning have been moved into the Planning Commission – 19 people. Town planners, experts in their field, are working for the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission is a representative organisation which has an independent chairperson who has a long history in the Northern Territory and detailed knowledge of how planning is achieved. In fact, he is credited all over Australia as a man who is worth his salt in this area. In additional to that, we have people who represent heritage values. The Heritage Council, the Environmental Protection Authority and the Development Consent Authority have automatic seats on that board. The member for Nelson seems to want to wash away all those people who represent those interests and simply put town planners on it. Member for Nelson, you have been briefed often enough and you understand the system. Why do you make these outrageous statements? It is wrong.
The government has a plan which it took to the election. We have a mandate to do this. We are consulting. We are going out of our way to consult. We are trying to talk to people all over the Territory on all issues in relation to development and planning, but it seems the opposition and selected Independents have no interest except in undermining that process and our efforts to consult with people. They do not encourage people to get on board to have their say.
What the member for Nelson and others want is big rowdy town hall meetings where we all throw rotten tomatoes and flour at the Planning Commission. That seems to be their only interest. Fundamentally, how was the member for Nelson elected? He was elected by sitting on the sidelines and throwing rocks at people. It is as simple as that.
We are putting in place good planning principles. We have town planners employed by the Planning Commission. All those planners have been moved from the Department of Lands and Planning and report directly to the Planning Commission to make sure we have proper detailed plans all the community can be satisfied with. Do we get support for that process? Do we get support for moving the public consultation from the development consent stage to the planning stage? No. All we get is misinformation, lies and dodginess. It is straight out wrong.
This is a very serious matter. I warn members opposite that if they think this is the golden elixir to somehow prove the government is in a shambles, what they will prove is the parliament is in a shambles and you are in complete disarray. If this motion is approved it effectively kills the Palmerston Regional Hospital.
Whilst the Holtze area plan – I will table this – is out for public consultation there is an expectation it will be signed off in the near future. Government is ahead of the game in this regard because we have already appointed a contractor to look after the overall development of that site – Lend Lease – and that was advertised in the paper the other day. They expect to start work on 1 October. If you support this motion you kill Palmerston Regional Hospital and open the government to paying compensation to the developer ...
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: Make no mistake, if this motion is supported you kill Palmerston Regional Hospital and put the whole process back on the drawing board to find a new location and new ways to get this done. It is amazingly hypocritical that the opposition can say they want to see the development of Palmerston Regional Hospital but will support this motion.
Member for Nelson, I recommend that when you make your final remarks you consider making an amendment to this motion which gives some certainty to the development of Palmerston Regional Hospital and that there will be support for the Holtze Area Plan. Without that certainty and support you put in jeopardy the future of Palmerston Regional Hospital. Be it on your heads if this motion gets up!
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I welcome the CLP to minority government, led by the front row wanting to abuse the Independents. What a great start to the new parliament of the Northern Territory: a minority government. Get used to it, folks, because it means your arrogance and self-centred approach to governing the Northern Territory must change. We on this side of the Chamber have asked for, pleaded for and recommended it, but now we demand it. It looks very clear this morning, ladies and gentlemen, that you do not like it. Continue with your abusive tactics and threatening of members on this side, including the new block of Independents, because it will get you nowhere. This motion will be a good test.
Let us wind back the clock to the new CLP government and the Chief Minister elected by the people of the Northern Territory, Hon Terry Mills. Let us go to the legislation to create the Planning Commission and the lengthy committee stage investigation which I facilitated. The opposition had many questions about a new government and its approach to planning in the Northern Territory. On that occasion Mr Mills took great offence at being questioned, but I noticed a number of interesting dynamics. He did not have much support that night. Most members were out of the Chamber and there was very little moral support from the benches behind the Chief Minister. It was obvious that there was a far more sinister agenda. That unfolded soon after.
Mr Mills jammed through the Planning Commission that night. In that debate I highlighted that Labor’s Greater Darwin Regional Land Use Plan was the most comprehensive planning document the Territory had seen. It would remain in the department of Lands and Planning with a name change of Lands, Planning and the Environment. Many good operators were terminated and very serious intellectual capital had left the department. The plan and all the work that was done would remain accessible to this government. However, there would be one significant difference: this government’s agenda was to focus on private land with private developers – their flat earth policy that they would release land more quickly and make it cheaper and more accessible by handing it to the private sector.
The new emerging story within the Northern Territory was Foundation 51. That clouded the environment and started the trust deficit of the CLP within the Territory community. There were many links that were sequential and logical when I looked at it from step to step. As we and the member for Nelson have said in this debate, there are no problems with private development. As a previous minister for Lands and Planning, I engaged with the private sector and across the community in the Northern Territory, where we saw the first land release programs for decades in Katherine, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs and Palmerston east. That included dialogue with the private development sector.
They lacked the understanding of delivering modern urbanism and the principles around social amenity. They were still stuck in the past with rhetoric about cutting up small blocks. They were in a group within the community that needed education and awareness around better urban planning principles. They were very engaging and interested in the opportunity for learning. They were also interested in the previous Labor government’s policies regarding land release, and we had serious dialogue at the table.
As the member for Nelson said in the motion, nobody is blocking private developers but it is about delivering the new principles of modern urbanism.
This government has focused on a very select group. We have seen the member for Fong Lim start to tie in some of the other conspiracies that have been generated within the Territory community: the jobs for mates, the favours and the cash for access. All the agendas put out by the CLP through the parliament into the media have the Territory community talking.
Last night, at the Leader of the Opposition’s forum held in a room at the Hilton Hotel, which was full, one of the dominant agendas about lack of trust in the current CLP government related to planning. I talked to a number of those participants in the car park afterwards and said it became very clear to me in that forum that one of the major concerns about trust and the integrity of the CLP government relates to planning. It was agreed upon by a number of participants.
I said I would raise those sentiments every opportunity I have in Caucus to remind the members on this side that this is where the government has gone wrong. They are being judged by the people, not by the opposition. The agenda of citizens who turned up to a town hall forum to discuss trust and integrity was the CLP’s lack of understanding and serious lack of integrity in its planning principles and processes.
This has come to a head today in a very important debate. The element of the motion is a stop-the-bus element, in my language. It is a warning. It is offering an alternative marker for this government: stop the bus before it is too late, before there are serious planning mistakes made that will affect the future of the Northern Territory.
I like to refer to Darwin as the capital of northern Australia. If you look at the greater Darwin area it reflects the capital city of northern Australia, with a potential to attract businesses into the Northern Territory, as opposed to northwest Western Australia and Queensland. So we better get it right. Looking at public opinion of the behaviour of the current government falling into a minority, with a revolving door of Cabinet ministers, constant infighting and scandal after scandal, it has become very obvious that it does not really hold for good management of Territory natural resources, including land and planning.
The opposition always likes to present an alternative. We are not about knock, knock, knock, as was the CLP in opposition. There seems to be a similar story emerging within the Liberal camp: great oppositions, lousy governments. I wonder how the CLP will be judged further down the track, let us say in August 2016?
The alternative is the city of Weddell. As I said, the greater Darwin Land Use Plan has been used extensively by the incoming government, and I have acknowledged those elements. The city of Weddell was scrapped and ridiculed, and the alternative presented by government was development of the Howard Peninsula where there was no infrastructure. I constantly argued that when a Labor government policy put roads, water and power into the Middle Arm development to support industry and there was the potential of a planned city – the Enquiry by Design process that walked Territorians step by step through the design process of the Territory’s newest city – then it made good sense in good policy and planning to deliver good outcomes. The CLP scrapped that, which was its first big mistake. It emerged that you had to go back to the rural area because that is where the private developers were that you wanted to engage with. I will leave that story open for the Territory to make its own decisions as to why the Howard Peninsula, with no supporting infrastructure, was your alternative.
What emerged – and the member for Fong Lim has just talked about it – was the Palmerston hospital. I challenged the Health minister and offsided him when I said we would both claim to give birth to rising sewer mains in the Northern Territory because the Palmerston hospital reflected a major fudge. You dropped the ball ...
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Mr McCARTHY: It was not the current Health minister’s issue, but being a major player in Cabinet I am quite surprised the Palmerston hospital became such a dysfunctional issue. The member for Port Darwin would have been one of the big hitters to try to keep that Cabinet on track. We know all the stories that have emerged from that.
The Palmerston hospital was completely botched by the incoming government. The time frames were missed. The federal government pulled out support and left the CLP government floundering with no Palmerston hospital. Their other move to change the site from serviced land in a health precinct to a greenfield site was another nave effort to smokescreen the issue from Territorians. We then saw a combination of existing plans such as an intersection upgrade, the rising sewer main and the water main. This was an attempt to fuse a land release project delivered by the private sector to support the hospital story.
It became very murky and muddy. The member for Fong Lim, the current Minister for Lands and Planning, has now threatened the opposition and Independents with the demise of the Palmerston hospital. After three years of dysfunction, poor decision-making, poor planning and complete fudging the CLP has the hide to say today that it will be on our heads. What a joke! What a glass-jaw response and a dismal, pathetic approach to minority government.
Listen to that very carefully because that is the new game, ladies and gentlemen. One can expect we will see more of a non-partisan approach, shall we say? We have had some very good examples of non-partisan CLP policy. That is where they have come into this House and completely blown a motion on Foundation 51, scrambled back for the numbers and returned to this House to ridicule and put down the member for Nelson, showing their true colours.
I have great admiration for the member for Nelson, but I advise him from time to time to look at the beast he is dealing with and not be so all-forgiving. I know where that comes from. I value and appreciate that.
In the debate the member for Nelson said this is urgent. This is a very urgent because if this is not corrected, if we do not stop the bus and engage the public and plan for a very defined area in the rural area, then decisions by this dysfunctional government could affect the development of the Northern Territory – the capital of northern Australia. Get it wrong and we will suffer for decades. So this is urgent and important.
This is minority government and you will be held to account. I attended a forum in Darwin last night and there are far greater forces at play which represent the public, who will hold you to account. Some of the crowd’s serious concerns last night were about planning, integrity, trust and accountability, with the focus on planning. Numerous people had their own stories but generally, across the group, there was real concern about the way planning has been carried out.
I support this motion. I stand with the Labor opposition on this side of the House. I encourage the Independents to stand. The game has changed considerably, but it is probably remiss of me to use the word ‘game’. The business of this House has changed considerably for the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory. We now have the opportunity to deliver for the people of the Northern Territory. They will exercise that power; you watch it. This is just the start of the accountability drive.
Labor’s Greater Darwin Land Use Strategy also included the rural villages plan. Two members who were very active in that were the members for Goyder and Nelson. They brought people from the rural area with them. They drafted their own plan and, in the collaborative sense, we worked together to deliver for those people.
I attended public forums in the rural area on a number of occasions, not only regarding delivery of the new correctional services precinct, but also about Labor’s rural villages plan and the rational, sensible intensification strategy that would deliver modern urbanism in the rural area but retain those aspects of amenity, social amenity and environmental outcomes – those lungs of the developing greater Darwin area that need to be preserved.
As I mentioned in this debate, it also brought the private sector to the table and commenced their learning journey about the principles of modern urbanism. I felt we were heading in the right direction together; we had momentum. It was not fast or furious by any stretch of the imagination, because good planning needs good engagement. If you take the public with you then you will achieve the best outcomes. I once again draw members’ attention to the Enquiry by Design process.
Madam Speaker, I encourage the member for Fong Lim to revisit those documents and the information held within the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment, get them on the table with the Planning Commission and revisit the principles that were taking the public along this pathway. This motion, which I urge all members to support, will stop the bus and achieve a back-to-reality sense and vision for the Northern Territory if it gets up today.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of participants in the Adult Migrant English Program accompanied by Marian Fletcher. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your time here today.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr ELFERINK (Health): Madam Speaker, I pick up on the comments that the member for Barkly supports the motion as it currently exists. The motion, as it currently exists, will stop Palmerston Regional Hospital.
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: If you support this motion in its current shape, Palmerston Regional Hospital is under direct threat. This is the reason I said be careful with entrapment and those things.
I have had some discussion with the member for Nelson in the background and understand he will move a motion the government will welcome. However, the motion as it currently stands before this House will have the effect of stopping Palmerston Regional Hospital. Think about it.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I listened to the minister for Planning and am confused. He said I throw rocks. I will show you this piece of paper. I spent a considerable amount of time – which you were part of, Madam Speaker – on what were called the Noonamah/Hughes development plans proposed by Wood and Purick. It was not throwing rocks; it was putting forward some positive suggestions.
I say to the people who might be affected by this motion today that I am not against development of their areas, but I am passionate that people in the region have not been fully consulted. This might not have to wait as long as next year. If something can happen in the meantime and the public can be consulted, so be it.
This is a major change, not just at Lowther Road. By the way, I remind the minister that he postponed a development in the rural area, which is no more than I am asking for today. He claims he did that because there needs to be public consultation about the Litchfield Sub-Regional Land Use Plan, formerly known as the Litchfield Land Use Objectives. I am doing no more than the minister is doing to a developer in the rural area. I do not see this as being anti-development. I want development to go ahead, but I want it to be rational.
I remember the workshops for Weddell. There are some lessons we can learn from Weddell. We got planners from interstate who had ideas about how Weddell should be developed, with or without the dam. We have an opportunity to do that here. If you are talking about land areas bigger than Palmerston, you would expect there would be some in-depth discussions, workshops and options that would involve the experts, local government and the residents of the area and the region. I cannot say that has happened.
I have a document here called the Community Consultation Report, the result of speaking to people. They spoke to half of government, which is fine. They spoke to individuals outside the supermarkets, which you could say is fine. But when you look at who they spoke to, many of those people were involved in development: the Property Council NT; the Real Estate Institute; the Australian Institute of Architects; the Planning Institute; the Urban Development Institute of Australia; and the Chamber of Commerce. There were a great many people you should talk to, as well as a few members of parliament, government departments, etcetera.
Here we need to be broader than that. Those at Michels Warren Munday would not have put this in if they did not believe it reflected the consultation process. This is from their survey, on page 35, the last page, which includes comments on the consultation process:
A rural resident said:
It was not until people realised what was happening – until a notice of intent fell off the back of a truck and about nine people realised their land was going to be turned into Service Commercial and the promised road to Glyde Point would be 50 m from their back fence – that they formed a group and wanted the Planning Commission to go and talk to them. They had to drag, kicking and screaming, a Planning Commission that should have been out there from day one. That is my problem. You might laugh and say, ‘Oh, Gerry Wood …’.
This is the A3 version of an A4 document you issued. There was not one planning meeting in relation to this. People were given this and that and asked to comment. Planning is complicated and difficult and affects everybody’s lives. People make money out of planning. People even lose money in planning. People find their amenity is destroyed if planning is incorrect. That document is what people received. They were asked to comment on that over Christmas. Was there any public consultation? None!
I held four meetings and tried to be as neutral as possible. I can show you my PowerPoint presentation. I showed the people the existing plans for the rural area, the ones we live under now. I compared them with what was being proposed and told people at those meetings, ‘Go away and have a think about it’. I tried to do my best to make sure people were consulted. I did not have tomatoes thrown at me. The only reason you have tomatoes thrown at you is when people do not trust your reason for being there. You need to take people at face value and as mature citizens who can and want to understand and be part of the decision-making process.
There were no public meetings when this book was issued. This came out at the Darwin Royal Show. That was the result of this one. I held two public meetings – I literally ran out of time – and asked people what they thought.
You can say I am throwing rocks, but you are wrong. I will criticise when I need to, but I try to be positive. I try to work through the system. I am criticised because I have come here today, not because I want to show off because we have the majority in parliament, because I …
Mr Tollner: That is what you are doing.
Mr WOOD: No. I am desperate to have this fixed. If the developers and people get together and say, ‘We are fine with it’, that is it, I will not keep arguing about it.
Do not come in here, minister, and complain about what is happening and put it as if this is some type of circus I am trying to put forward. You need to look at yourself. One, two, three, four members of your party are the reason why you are in the position, not me. I have stood here all the time and not changed my position as an Independent. Your party is losing members and another member is thinking about it. I am not the reason for this mess here. I am bringing forward something that had to be on urgency because it turned up in Friday’s paper and it needs looking at.
Minister, you again said I am throwing rocks. Come on, tell the truth. I came to see you recently. You asked me for some suggestions about governance. I put those to you as honestly as I could, saying how the government could improve itself from a governance point of view. I told you that you needed to put this plan on hold because it had not been done in a way where people felt they had been consulted. That was a positive thing for your government. I was not knocking the government; I was saying I felt these are things that could improve the way you operate. To now say I throw rocks is mean.
It is my media release they took some of the information from and I can show you the e-mails. They asked me if they could use some of it.
Please, I am not standing here just for the sake of talking; I am trying to do something positive. I do not want to see something that, once approved, then that is it. I am confident that through proper consultation and people being given options and discussing the effect this will have, through a discussion about why we cannot build Weddell – you cannot take this discussion on its own. You cannot put 70 000 people in the rural area and say, ‘We will build Weddell one day’. You are at the crossroad, at the spot where you have to make up your mind. Which way is the government going? Will it build Weddell as a city and leave the rural area developed as villages or say, ‘We are not interested in Weddell; let’s turn it over to private landowners and we will build a pseudo-Weddell’? As you know, on the plan before the Planning Commission it is called East Weddell. That area still has 27 000 people in it.
I am running out of time, but I want to give the minister an idea why I am not knocking things, but I want to make sure things are right. For instance, in the area we are talking about between Hughes and Noonamah there is a cattle export facility, smack in the middle. Just up the road there is a feedlot which is going before the EPA at the moment. Further down there is the abattoir. What effect will this development have on that?
We are saying – and I am presuming the Chief Minister is saying – we have a great future with cattle exports to Indonesia, Vietnam and China. Where will we put the facilities? Will we stick them all at Batchelor? What thought is being given to that part of our economic development? How will this development affect it?
I am not raising these issues because I am saying you cannot have development, I am saying there is a big picture that needs to be looked at, a community that needs to be spoken to, many issues we need to discuss, and we should not be doing this without making sure the processes are proper and the governance is correct.
I am passionate about my rural area. I asked some police the other day what the crime rate for the rural area was. They said they had two break-ins about a month ago. I like the area because it gives Territorians an option to raise their family and have chooks, a bit of bush and a quad bike if they keep the noise down. All of those options mean you can raise a family with kids having opportunities they cannot always get on a 300 m block with not even enough room to play French cricket in the back yard, if you have a back yard.
I hope the government supports that option, but I do not get the feeling it supports it or cares. We have so much land in this area but all we can talk about is infill. We can build Weddell. We can build industry in Weddell such as service industries. We can build schools in Weddell. We can make Weddell a small city that is sustainable, if we want to. We should not be turning the rural area into a pseudo version.
Madam Speaker, I move an amendment to the motion by adding another paragraph:
4. the effect of this motion should not in any way prevent the advance of the Palmerston hospital, hospital precinct and associated works.
Debate suspended.
The Assembly suspended.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of Years 11 and 12 Legal Studies students from O’Loughlin Catholic College accompanies by Louise Delahunty. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr CLERK: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 100A, I inform honourable members that responses to Petition Nos 42, 47 and 48 have been received and circulated to honourable members.
The text of the response will be placed on the Legislative Assembly website. A copy of the response will be provided to the member who tabled the petition for distribution to petitioners.
Continued from earlier this day.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, the government, in desperation, has plucked out something it can find that is not right with this motion about amendments to planning. Members are clutching at straws by saying this threatens the future of Palmerston Regional Hospital is nonsense from a desperate and nonsensical government. The reality is the only threat to the Palmerston Regional Hospital in the three years the CLP has been in government has been the CLP itself.
If we had proceeded with the plans instigated under Labor, those people who live in the Palmerston and rural area would have had access to the Palmerston Regional Hospital and its services by the end of this year. If Labor was elected as an alternative government we would ensure that development of the Palmerston Regional Hospital progresses.
Finally, after three years of fighting, they have at least some works under way for commencement of that hospital. Let us not forget that the delays associated with this hospital are entirely a result of the bungling and infighting within the CLP for three years that has resulted in a revolving door of Cabinet ministers, and with that a revolving door of Planning and Health ministers. As we all know, on the record is a very infamous Cabinet meeting where, allegedly, the Treasurer hurled Cabinet folders at former Chief Minister, Terry Mills, over the issue of Palmerston Regional Hospital. Let us be very clear about this: any threat to Palmerston Regional Hospital under this motion before the House is a furphy. Only the CLP poses a threat to the future of Palmerston Regional Hospital.
They cannot even agree on when it will be opening its doors. We only have to look back to estimates. The Health minister stands by his statement that it will be opening its doors in May 2018, despite the Chief Minister and the Treasurer saying during the estimates process that would not be the case, as Palmerston Regional Hospital will not be opening its doors until the third quarter of 2018. That is a significant difference of opinion which is the centre of a wager between the Health minister and the Chief Minister. I cannot remember how much they bet, but they put that bet on the record before the parliament.
Madam Speaker, I support the amended motion. The minority government is in for a wakeup call. I thank the member for Nelson for bringing this amended motion before the House.
Mr TOLLNER (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for providing the amendment. At least it gives a little certainty about the construction of the Palmerston hospital, and for that, I am glad.
It is also a supporting amendment for the Holtze Area Plan. For those people who are not aware of what that is, I will table it so people can see what is being discussed. We are not talking about 70 000 residents going into this area. This is a plan for the hospital and its immediate environs.
Currently the Litchfield Sub-Regional Land Use Plan is being conducted. Public consultation is occurring as we speak in relation to the Litchfield Sub-Regional Land Use Plan, of which the Holtze Area Plan is a part. The idea of ripping out the Litchfield section of the Darwin Regional Land Use Plan and going back to the drawing board would kill that project. As I said prior to lunch and the member for Nelson making the amendment, this motion as it was would have killed the Palmerston hospital. I thank the member for Nelson for making the amendment. I must point out that this motion is unworkable …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, you can only speak to the amendment, which is about the hospital.
Mr TOLLNER: Sorry, Madam Speaker. I am speaking to the amended motion …
Madam SPEAKER: No, just the amendment.
Mr TOLLNER: Very tricky. I wish to speak on the amended motion, which is unworkable irrespective of the amendment. There is a range of reasons for that. If you bear with me, member for Nelson, I may be able to make life easier for you so you can accomplish what you want with further amendments.
On 17 December 2013 the NT Planning Commission released a document titled Towards a Darwin Regional Land Use Plan 2014. This publication presented the commission’s preliminary thinking on land use planning for the region and built upon community feedback received on the briefing note released to the public in July 2013, which explored the process, scope and key issues in developing the Darwin Regional Land Use Plan. Ninety-three submissions were received on the preliminary publication.
The Planning Commission then sought public feedback on the draft land use plan between 23 July and 1 September 2014. As part of the consultation process, the Planning Commission provided 25 briefings for stakeholders and set up displays to engage with the public. About 530 stakeholders, including groups and individuals, were directly involved in that consultation, while 54 submissions provided feedback on the draft plan.
The revised plan was exhibited as a proposed amendment to the NT Planning Scheme, with submissions closing on Friday 19 December 2014. The exhibition period was subsequently extended to 16 January 2015, and a total of 178 submissions were received. The reporting body, the Planning Commission, held a hearing on the evening of 18 February 2015, and provided the member for Nelson, rural resident Di Tynan and Dean Chambeyron – who is the Northern Territory Regional Manager of the Housing Industry Association – with the opportunity to address their submissions at a further hearing on 2 March 2015.
On 10 July 2015 the Darwin Regional Land Use Plan 2015 was included in the NT Planning Scheme as a policy document which will guide decisions by the Development Consent Authority on development applications. The Darwin Regional Land Use Plan sets the broader framework for land use development in the Darwin region.
The member for Nelson is proposing a review of a component of the land use plan. The land use plan cannot be reviewed in part, as suggested by the member for Nelson. By definition, the Darwin Regional Land Use Plan is a regional plan. The rural area forms a part of future expansion of the Darwin region. To facilitate what the member for Nelson is asking for would require an NT Planning Scheme amendment to be exhibited to remove the Darwin Regional Land Use Plan from the Northern Territory Planning Scheme as a policy document. This would be a significant amendment and will create a level of uncertainty in the broader community. As a significant amendment, the amendment would have to be advertised for a minimum of 28 days, consideration of submissions and a further reporting body hearing to consider the submissions lodged would be required, followed by consideration and a decision by the minister for revoke. This would, as a minimum, take three months.
The NT Planning Commission then would be required to review the whole land use plan and reengage the whole of the regional community, not just Litchfield. If the member for Nelson is suggesting the purpose of this consultation is to remove urban and peri-urban areas such as Holtze and the Noonamah locality from the plan, the Planning Commission will need to find equivalent land to cover the growth of the Darwin region in the short and long term. The plan cannot be reviewed in isolation as peri-urban and urban areas form the basis of the broader plan.
The Planning Commission has embarked on the subregional plan which will replace the Litchfield Planning Concepts and Land Use Objectives of 2002, which I understand the member for Nelson was inextricably involved with at the time. This will address rural activity centres and land in between. This will be completed for statutory exhibition in early 2016.
This amended motion is completely unworkable. The member wants to pull out the Litchfield part of the Darwin Regional Land Use Plan in isolation. I have to question what the member for Nelson is up to. Is he trying to frustrate the planning process because he thinks we are all corrupt, that we are on the take, as some members have suggested in this place? In fact some members have suggested that I am on the take. I take offence to that.
Is he suggesting the whole planning scheme needs to be torn up and thrown away, and we should put a moratorium on the entire development of the Darwin region until some process is arrived at for a new way of planning in the Northern Territory? It is very hard to understand what the member for Nelson is proposing in this motion and the direction he is trying to give government, because fundamentally this amended motion, irrespective that it gives some certainty to the new Palmerston hospital, is unworkable.
I know the opposition and the Independents are very keen to flex their muscles and show the public that we are an incompetent minority government. But you still need to be very careful about this. In my view this is backfiring on the Independents and the Labor Party because there is only one way this can go if you want to enforce government to go down this path, and that is a full moratorium on all development across the Top End. That is not really what members opposite are chasing.
I do not know why members opposite cannot be a little more honest and up front and say, ’This issue is not about planning, it is about upsetting the parliament, creating mayhem and chaos and demonstrating that you are a minority government and you can no longer make decisions’. If that is your goal, good on you. I do not agree with it, but good on you; you can demonstrate that. You can all band together and be Labor Independents, if you want to call it that, or ‘the opposition’ as a whole. You can all jump on board with the member for Nelson and use this stalking horse called planning as a vehicle to somehow demonstrate the government is not functioning. But be warned. If you seriously want to push this motion and create this sort of mayhem in our planning scheme, that is what you will do if you support this amended motion. It is wrong at the outset. It has been a great stunt and I have loved sitting here listening to debate from both sides. You have made your point: we are a minority government. Hear, hear! We have found that out.
But as for governing you have made a silly mistake because you have demonstrated today that you could not be trusted to govern because you do not do the leg work. You do not do the research and understand what is going on.
As I said earlier in relation to the original motion, the Planning Commission is consulting more than anybody has ever consulted in the past. It is not just show circuits or turning up to Gerry’s public meetings. It is not just doing pub and town hall meetings, it is getting out there talking to people, doorknocking. We are polling for goodness sakes. We have brought professional experts in to do market research, to telephone people and run focus groups so we get a real idea of what people’s views are, not just in the rural area but across the Northern Territory ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I advised you before that you are meant to be talking just to the amendment, not to the amended motion.
Mr TOLLNER: Sorry, Madam Speaker, I am speaking to the amended motion.
Madam SPEAKER: No, no, the amendment.
Mr TOLLNER: The amendment and the amended motion.
Madam SPEAKER: No, just the amendment, member for Fong Lim: ‘Point 4, the effect of this motion should not in any way prevent the advances of the Palmerston hospital’.
Mr TOLLNER: Okay, Madam Speaker, I do not want an argument. I am speaking to the amendment.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr TOLLNER: The amendment, taken in conjunction with the rest of the motion, shows it is unworkable. It will not work. You are demonstrating that, irrespective if you are prepared to listen to reason on this amendment, you have not done the leg work across the whole motion ...
Ms Fyles: Your government has not done the leg work.
Mr TOLLNER: I did not come into this place with this motion; it was sprung on us this morning as soon as we sat down. You asked for standing orders to be set aside and made a point of surprising the government. One would have thought that in surprising the government you would have done some leg work, got some information together and put a workable motion to this parliament. But in all haste to show this is an unworkable government, you have failed in the most basic test: bringing something sensible into the Chamber.
For that reason, we cannot support the amended motion. It will be a test for the Independents and our Labor members opposite to see just how twisted they are and whether they want to further the point that the whole place is dysfunctional …
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 62. What the Treasurer is now starting to waffle on about is quite offensive.
Madam SPEAKER: Treasurer, if you could just tone your language down, please.
Mr TOLLNER: Okay, Madam Speaker. It is an exercise in political correctness this place, is it not? You have to be so careful. I will make an effort to speak in nice terms of people like Tinker Bell, rather than twisted up views ...
Ms Fyles: Mature debate.
Mr TOLLNER: Yes. Part of mature debate is understanding what you are talking about.
The member for Barkly said this morning that the previous Labor government had the members for Nelson and Goyder on board. ‘They supported our plans in the rural area.’ Really? What parallel universe are you living in?
I have a classic media release somewhere which demonstrates how on board the members for Nelson and Goyder were with Labor’s planning scheme, which was to develop the whole of Blake Street with high-rise buildings and to put them into the botanic gardens. In fact, it is what the developer at 4 Blake Street used as his supporting documentation when he went to the Development Consent Authority. But we now hear Labor saying, ‘No, you cannot have development in The Gardens’. It was your plan. The developer used your plan to back his application. This is where the Labor Party will always walk two sides of the street. It will say one thing and do the opposite.
Madam Speaker, I am not accusing the member for Nelson of that. He has always been a bit quirky in his views, I will give him that much. Member for Nelson, I appreciate where you are coming from, trying to show the government is destabilised and that type of thing.
As the Chief Minister said in Question Time, we are focused on one thing and one thing only, and that is fundamentally doing what is best for Territorians and driving economic growth.
Amendment agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the amended motion be agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
Motion agreed to.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended that would prevent me from immediately moving a motion in the following terms for debate and decision by the Assembly ahead of all other business today:
That the Assembly adopt a new sessional order which will:
1. suspend the operation of Standing Order 258 and
2. order that a minister may make a statement on government policy, a government decision, a government action or on a proposed government action at any time when there is no question before the Assembly, provided that copies of the statement are distributed to all members of the Legislative Assembly by 5 pm the day before the statement is made.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I remember hearing yesterday on the news that the leader of opposition business predicted chaos in the House today. Clearly she is right by virtue of the fact they want to start suspending standing orders and creating chaos in this House. This is the role they are now pursuing.
I get what the member for Nelson was doing. I have some time for the member for Nelson because he works as a pretty genuine operator in this place. The same cannot be said for the member for Nightcliff because she is whingeing about the fact we have arrived at a point where we do not trust the other side with statements. We do trust the other side with statements. We delivered the statements to a couple of Independents because they do not have a history of leaking those statements.
Ms Walker: Oh, God!
Mr ELFERINK: I hear ‘Oh God’ from the leaker extraordinaire. The member for Nhulunbuy proudly leaked this information, then she said in this House she leaked this information. What would we have made of it as a jurisdiction if the minister, for whatever reason, had to make an amendment to that statement from the time it was circulated to the time it was delivered in this House? Then whatever she leaked would be wrong. The House does not possess the statement until such time as the House hears the statement. This is why the standing order in relation to the statement is quite clear; that the statement is circulated when the minister gets to their feet.
As a matter of courtesy, historically those statements have been issued earlier than that. I, for one, have argued on this side – amongst ourselves – that we should extend that courtesy to members opposite. There has been resistance to that notion by virtue of the fact we open the newspaper in the morning and see that members opposite have made public comments in relation to a statement that has not yet been delivered in this House.
How are we supposed to trust the members opposite? Here is an amendment off the floor of the House that is so urgent we must stop the business of parliament and vote to suspend our standing orders, the book which guides us and sets the rules for this House. The motion before this House is that we suspend this book. We get rid of it. There is the rule book; it is gone. Now it is a free-for-all. Do you know what the status and the value of the argument is? We want to change the time that a statement is circulated. Talk about using a sledge hammer to crack an egg!
What say you to this idea? During notices today, the member could have said something like, ‘Madam Speaker, I give notice of the following motion’, then tomorrow at 5.30 pm the member could argue that motion. Or alternatively she could have said to us, ‘We have a real problem with this. We might give you an absolute cast-iron guarantee that we will not leak those statements prior to …
Ms Lawrie interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! Minister, you have the call.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, prior to coming in here, they could ring us and say, ‘Okay, we know there has been a bit of history here. Here is the deal. We promise we will not leak the statements’. Do you know what the response from this side of the House would be? ‘Okay, we could probably live with that. But you have form and you will be on notice.’
But the response from the members opposite is, ‘No, we leaked it and we are proud to have leaked it.’ That is what the member for Nhulunbuy did. She was proud to have leaked the statement; she had no problem with leaking the statement.
What if we had delivered a completely different statement or more importantly, what if we had not delivered the statement at all the next day because there was an error in the draft or we had another piece of business before the House which prevented the statement from being delivered? There would be the member for Nhulunbuy, standing out the front making all these comments about this statement that was never delivered in the House.
We extend the courtesy because we would like to see the quality of debate improved. That is why the courtesy has always been extended that the statement was circulated the night before. That is why we deal with the members in accordance with the way they deal with us. These are mere operational issues; we should not make political footballs out of them. But not only do they want to make a political football out of this, now they want to suspend standing orders to the nth degree to make sure they can pursue this issue.
Look at the enormity of the suspension – the undemocratic processes you have all complained about across the other side we have heard ad nauseam – considering the magnitude of the thing you are trying to redress. Frankly, if you had a chat with us and gave us a guarantee you would not leak the information, you would not have to do any of this nonsense.
The problem is it is the government’s or ministers’ prerogative whether or not they deliver a statement. If the statement is delivered the night before in its written form, or alternatively on the morning the statement is made, you still cannot refer to it because it has not yet been given in the House. It is only when the minister makes the statement that he necessarily, by virtue of the enormity of these documents as a general rule, has to make the statement available.
Madam Speaker, we would be happy to go into negotiations with the members opposite to try to find a way through this, but suspending standing orders for this cause? I am sorry, that is a nonsense.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, we propose this motion today on urgency. There are two proposed statements for debate from the Chief Minister and the Deputy Chief Minister. I am sure most Territorians would agree that their portfolios are very important, yet the non-government members have no idea what these statements are about. It is an ongoing culture of cover-up by the CLP government. All we know is there is a statement by the Deputy Chief Minister and the Chief Minister, but we were not given those statements to get that information. It would be reasonable for all 25 members of this House to see those statements at 5 pm the day before.
This motion is urgent because those statements will come before us later today, yet the non-government members – the five Independent and eight Labor members – have not seen those statements. All we know is the Chief Minister and the Deputy Chief Minister are bringing statements before the House. This is ...
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 63. This is not relevant to the motion. She is debating the motions; this is a motion to suspend standing orders.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, the member is summarising her motion to suspend standing orders, then it will be put to the vote. Member for Nightcliff, you have the call.
Ms FYLES: This is a test of a government that says it wants to be more consultative. The Chief Minister has said he wants to be open and to consult with people. This is a chance for the government to restore order to the House; where non-government members can receive those statements at 5 pm the day before they are debated so everyone can have the time to make a thoroughly considered response. It is a simple courtesy and is in the best interest of the Northern Territory. Therefore, I move the motion.
The Assembly divided:
Motion agreed to.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, I move:
That the Assembly adopt a new sessional order which will:
1. Suspend the operation of Standing Order 258 and
2. Order that:
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Can we see a copy of the motion; it has not been circulated.
Madam SPEAKER: A copy will be forthcoming.
Ms FYLES: The CLP government, in its arrogance, changed a long-standing convention that statements were delivered the evening before to allow non-government members time to prepare for the statement and fully respond. This motion simply restores that convention of non-government members being provided with statements at 5 pm the day before. It is a simple reinstatement of a long-standing convention.
The Leader of Government Business this morning in the debate prior to this – and the Treasurer recently – claimed he was surprised about the motion this morning, but that it was critical that every statement brought into this parliament is debated and everyone is able to understand all points.
For over a year now, non-government members, at the same time the minister rises to speak, have been given a copy of the statement. In wanting proper and accurate debate – which is something you go on so much about, Leader of Government Business – providing statements to non-government members at 5 pm the day before will allow them the opportunity to prepare and have a well-considered speech.
I made my points earlier about why it was so urgent to suspend standing orders today. This afternoon we will have two statements to the House. One assumes they are very important as they are coming from the Chief Minister and the Deputy Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. However, non-government members know nothing about it. Restoring a time-honoured convention will allow non-government members access to these statements to review the information. Making a thoughtful speech is important.
We have seen an arrogant government not listen to the community and cut non-government members off. You are now a minority government and you need to start listening. This parliament is not chaotic; the government is chaotic. That chaos should not impact on other members of this Legislative Assembly. We all have the right to know what is scheduled for the next day so we can be involved in debate and provide a representation of our community and our shadow portfolios, not simply have statements dropped on our desk as the minister rises to speak. We are asked to speak on something when we do not know the details.
In restoring this convention to the House a courtesy will now be extended to non-government members who will be provided with statements so they can have the information and make speeches in the best interests of all Territorians. We have a number of portfolios. It is important that speeches are provided to non-government members so all 25 members of this House can see that detail ahead of time.
This simple measure of providing statements to all members of the House at 5 pm the day before is a real test of your government. Do you want to be more consultative? The Chief Minister talks all the time about being open and consultative. This is a chance to restore some order to the government, which impacts on the whole House.
I thank members for supporting the suspension of standing orders so we can debate this motion. Some of my colleagues want to provide some thoughts on this so I will keep my comments reasonably short.
Madam Speaker, it is an important fact that all members of this Legislative Assembly are elected by the community. We are here to represent our community and our shadow portfolios. An arrogant government changed a long-standing convention so statements were not provided the evening before. This motion simply restores that convention to allow non-government members to be provided with statements at 5 pm the day before so we can all be informed in our debates.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I will be moving an amendment to this because the argument is couched in a single term: convention. The convention has been, historically, that a ministerial statement was circulated the night prior to the minister making that statement to this House. Often under the former government it was circulated about 9 pm or 10 pm the night before.
If convention is what we are pursuing, then we must have a quid pro quo – a meeting of the minds halfway along the road. If they want the statement at 5 pm the night before, that is fine. However, the second part of the convention is that when that statement is received by that member it is treated as a matter of confidence ...
Ms Lawrie: Rubbish! You circulated it to your stakeholders from opposition. You are making that up!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: It is treated as a matter of confidence. We did not read about it in the newspaper the next day.
Put away your anger for once, member for Karama, it is eating you up inside.
Ms Lawrie: You are making it up.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: It is tearing you apart. It is causing you more grief than you could possibly imagine, member for Karama ...
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, through the Chair.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, through the Chair, I would like the member for Karama to find some peace in her life, because clearly she struggles with it.
Reading about a statement in the newspaper the next day did not please us. As a matter of convention, we also notify members opposite of the statements we are bringing before the House. The member referred to two matters coming before the House, one by the Chief Minister and one by the Deputy Chief Minister today. How did she know that? We told them there would be statements.
We circulated the statements last night. I asked for one to be circulated to the member for Nelson. Why? Because he observes the convention. I think the other one went to the member for Araluen because she also observes the convention. You lecture us about conventions. Here is the rub: you guys would do better to observe the conventions.
I was hoping this would be typed as I have only scratched it out, but I move an amendment to the motion that inserts after the word ‘made’ a full stop and a new sentence with the words: such statements when circulated are to be treated with absolute confidence and any circulation to be treated as a breach of privilege.
Therefore, you will have, as a privileged position in this House, access to government information before the public. That is one of the privileges that will come with this job.
Let us see how much the convention means to them, because what you will find from the members opposite is straightforward. They will vote for the motion, but they will want to circulate the thing. Convention will be a one-way street under this lot.
Madam Speaker, I want to see the statements circulated; I have said that before. All I want is the convention that they so stridently argue to be observed completely. Let us see how we go.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, speaking to the motion and the amendment, I supported the original motion. However, I had it in my mind that when I spoke, I was hoping someone would say there could be an informal agreement that any papers circulated would be treated with confidence – subject to the ability to ring up some legal people or someone who might have some knowledge of what was in the statement – and not be for public circulation. I have said previously that you should be allowed to get some advice on a statement.
I do not think I can support this amendment.
Mr Elferink: I will accept an amendment.
Mr WOOD: I could do that. If I was to bring an amendment to this I would delete all words other than ‘such statements when circulated are to be treated with confidence’. I could live with that.
Having a breach of privilege is overkill; I do not think that is what this is about. We need the ability to discuss it not only within our party, but in the case of Independents who get together occasionally – that does not make us a party, it is a get together with other people here.
If the minister was to change his amendment, or if others want to change it – I could change it if you want – I would prefer ‘such statements when circulate are to be treated with confidence’. I could support that motion which would cover what I have said ...
Mr Elferink: What is the sanction?
Mr WOOD: The sanction, as you realise, is …
Mr Giles: That we stop making statements.
Mr WOOD: The only sanction you had before was to stop people receiving it until the morning, then the statements were not properly discussed. If you want to bring in breach of privilege, it starts to sound like a hanging offence.
Mr Elferink: Privilege is like that.
Mr WOOD: That is right. But I am interested in hearing from this side what they think of the matter being held in confidence. I understand where this originated. I have been around long enough to know what happened. I am not saying I agree with that. I made the mistake once, and I got into strife about it. I made sure I did not do it again, not because I was worried about being told off. I just made an honest mistake.
Also you have to be mature enough in this parliament for members to be responsible, without needing rules and regulations that I believe are overkill. I would like to hear from the opposition whether they would abide by – even if it is not written down – at least some tradition, if you want to call it – I have forgotten the word you used …
Mr Elferink: Convention.
Mr WOOD: Convention. Some are arguing there is no convention. I do not know. But I still believe the principle that this should not be circulated widely when it has been given to someone is an important matter. If I was in the government, I must admit, I would not like to see a statement I was to make today end up in the front-page headlines of the NT News. That is a reasonable response you would expect from anyone in this parliament.
As it is now, that is overkill which I would not support. But I am interested in hearing the rest of the debate.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, are you proposing an amendment to the Leader of Government Business’s amendment, or are you proposing that his amendment be removed and you are proposing a new amendment, or neither?
Mr WOOD: I do not support the amendment, which is what we are talking to. I support the motion that was originally put.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, under Standing Order 146:
Do you wish to dispose of the Leader of Government Business’s amendment? Yes or no?
Mr WOOD: Yes.
Madam SPEAKER: The motion is that the amendment proposed by the Leader of Government Business be agreed to.
Motion negatived.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, I support the motion. There seems to be a rewriting of history here. I am one of the longest-standing members of this parliament, along with the member for Nelson. I have had the experience of reading ministerial statements to this House.
I can say very sincerely that when Labor was in government ministerial statements were circulated the afternoon or evening prior; we tried to get on or around the 5 pm to 7 pm mark. We knew very well they were circulated, distributed or passed on by the relevant shadow minister to their key stakeholders or advisers, people who they sought information and advice from. I remember in debate, time after time, shadow ministers referring to the feedback they had received from their various constituencies pertinent to that debate. What is wrong with that? Are we expected to sit here in the Chamber, in a silo, as 25 members of our community and not seek any feedback?
Where you used the word ‘confidence’, the concern is about whether it is held in confidence or read about in the paper. At the heart of the concerns raised – not the convention that has been made up, but the concerns raised – by the Leader of Government Business is whether it will be in the media the next day, prior to the statement being delivered in the House. To the extent of that concern, it is reasonable to mention it in conversations with the stakeholders you are seeking advice from. If it is a fisheries statement, as a shadow minister or as the member for Karama – and many people in my electorate love to fish and vote, both amateur and commercial – am I truly expected not to seek their opinions on information and detail led by government which goes to policy?
Often, reasonably, ministerial statements are part of policy evolution being announced. This is why we are a House of debate, because you then debate that policy and where it is moving to. Are we seriously expected to just keep that statement to ourselves and not seek the guidance, advice and information of people who it practically affects? I have used the example of fishing, but there could be a view on the Pillars of Justice the legal fraternity could provide information and guidance advice on.
It is surely about gaining and sharing knowledge and information in debate. These are statements. This is not legislation that has its own scrutiny process that sits, usually without urgency obviously, for a month. This is a statement. Statements tend to be the policy purview of government. It is reasonably the role of opposition and Independents to seek the guidance and views of their constituents and people who understand what the impact of that evolution of policy would be and to inform the House of their views on that.
Government may or may not take on board that debate. Government may proceed with the policy without any iterations following that debate or they might say, ‘The member for Araluen raised something I quite agree with. I will work with my department on incorporating those suggestions into this new policy.’ That is a House of debate.
Do you want to keep it out of the public domain prior to it formally being tabled in parliament? If that is your intent, will and desire, nothing precludes that in custom, practice or behaviour. There is nothing precluding a member of this House circulating a statement that obviously is not yet in the Chamber, but is intended for the next day. We all know that sometimes things crop up and the government advises the opposition, ‘We are not proceeding with that statement today, it will be dealt with on another day’. That happens. Nothing in this motion changes that. Nothing in this motion says the government still cannot decide to proceed with a statement or not.
This is about being reasonable and open, and consulting with Territorians and giving us all, as elected representatives of our community, the opportunity to consult with Territorians. What is wrong with that? What is wrong with saying, ‘We are distributing it; there it is’, and each of us accept and acknowledge it is not for public release because it has not been presented to parliament?
Yet how do you keep something in confidence when you have to give it to other people to get informed advice? A confidence bind around that is somewhat nonsensical. The idea of a privilege breach is extreme, but we are used to some extreme responses from this government, which leads to these sorts of debates, quite frankly. It was an extreme response to stop circulating the ministerial statements a day prior, then it became an extreme response to stop dropping them in the morning but just when debate commenced.
This, surely, is about restoring true policy debate to this Chamber and giving members of parliament the opportunity to be fully informed of debates coming before the House so they can undertake research and provide an informed policy debate. What harm is there in that?
We could continue with the bizarre drop-it-on-the-table practice this CLP government adopted, against convention, and have a political debate instead of a policy debate. However, if we have listened to Territorians and taken on board any of what they have had to say in the last months, it is that they want better from their elected representatives. They want people to genuinely have policy debates rather than the political slanging and swinging that does not attract them at all to the way they are represented.
I see this as a maturing of this Chamber and a genuine opportunity for the government to embrace policy debate. I cannot, for the life of me, work out why the government is so worried and frightened of that. If you create, in government, a ministerial statement and circulate it, surely you would be keen to hear the view of others about your policy contained within that? Surely you would be keen to hear from genuine stakeholders whose lives would be affected by your policy initiatives?
If you are not prepared to hear it how are you a truly representative government? What is wrong with being advised of an impact that perhaps would have been unforseen and picking that up in debate? Unless this is not truly meant to be a house of policy debate, which is a deep shame.
I hope the members of government ultimately will see fit to support this motion. I hope the members of government will say, ‘We are proud of our ministerial statements and of the effort, research, analysis and work that goes into creating them. Here they go to other members of parliament for scrutiny. We understand that by the nature of them being representatives of their communities, and being shadow ministers carrying responsibility across portfolio areas, that in their constituencies are stakeholders with expertise in the subject matter they will receive advice and information from.’
That would be a mature and eminently sensible approach. That is why there has been convention in this parliament prior to the current CLP government. There was no convention that it was never circulated from opposition to stakeholders. As a minister, time and time again I received feedback from shadow ministers and the then Leader of the Opposition saying, ‘This is what the stakeholder thought of this’. Clearly they had discussions overnight about it. I did not have a problem with that because it meant they were better informed and we were having more informed debates. What is wrong with that? Seriously!
Some were very capable and talented at doing that. Some excelled in the role of extending out to their key stakeholders, receiving information and incorporating it into their response to a government ministerial statement. With others, you just got their political or personal view. It varied from shadow minister to shadow minister. Those shadow ministers who made the effort to receive information made for a better policy debate in this Chamber.
Government ministers would hear things directly from a shadow minister, quoting what the organisation they had spoken to had to say. The word ‘draft’ is better than ‘in-confidence’. I take in-confidence as meaning I cannot pass it on to someone. I cannot say to the amateur fisherman in my electorate, ‘The government is intending to make this statement tomorrow. What is your view on the impacts of this? Is there a direction in which you want to see it taken?’
The term ‘in-confidence’ is defining. ‘Draft’ or ‘not for public comment’ is normal and probably more in line with the concerns of the Leader of Government Business. But at the end of the day what are you worried about? It is your work. You have gone to some effort to create that work. Surely you are proud of that work? You are proud enough to create it as a statement and bring it to parliament, so why are you worried that other people see it?
Stand and be proud of your own work and give Territorians the opportunity for some input into our policy debates. They are crying out for that; they want better government. They want a government that embraces a broader range of consultation and consideration, prepared to listen to views that are expressed which are not their own, but which contribute to debate.
Mr Deputy Speaker, that is why I support this motion. I thank the member for Nightcliff for bringing it forward.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this motion to allow greater scrutiny of ministerial statements before they are presented. I remember in opposition, sitting where the member for Wanguri sits now next to the member for Greatorex. We used to laugh at the ministerial statements brought on by the former Labor government. The member for Greatorex used to love calling them ‘puff pieces’ and to me they will always be that.
Even as a minister it used to run through my head that this was an opportunity for ministers to sell their wares, market their goods and tell everyone what a fabulous job they were doing. As the member for Karama just said, it is nothing to be ashamed of. But there has to be some discretion when ministerial statements are distributed so ministers feel they are leading the discussion rather than following it.
I am in a fairly unique position, which is growing in popularity. I have been in government, in opposition and now I am an Independent. Today as an Independent I support this motion that we all need some time to look at ministerial statements and get some advice from stakeholders, which may or may not be used to inform the debate. It can only enrich the debate if we have more time to ponder the content of the ministerial statements.
Governments almost instinctively try to avoid scrutiny and too much pressure, as well as too much bad media. I can relate to that in my time in government and as a minister. However, withholding ministerial statements to the very last minute until the minister is speaking is ludicrous. It is not in the spirit of parliamentary democracy. Scrutiny is essential and this motion opens the government up to the scrutiny it should have.
There are other measures we should consider, either today or at some point in the near future. Last year the CLP government reduced the number of sitting weeks by one week, which never really sat with me. I thought it was the wrong thing to do. The intention underlying that was to avoid scrutiny. Perhaps we need to put that on the agenda for debate by this parliament at some time. We should not be reducing the number of sitting weeks. If anything, we should be increasing the number of sitting weeks of the Northern Territory parliament.
The other thing the CLP government did during the time I was with them was separate the weeks of parliamentary sittings, so very rarely you have two weeks of sittings in a row. That was to avoid scrutiny. Now I am an Independent I am not so fussed on these ideas. Whatever it takes to improve the integrity of this parliament and the openness and accountability of government is a good thing.
When you are in government you tend to develop blinkers and tunnel vision. Sitting in the centre of this Chamber as an Independent has been an illuminating experience, seeing what games are played and strategies employed to benefit whatever side you are on, government or opposition.
Mr Deputy Speaker, for the time being I register my support for this motion brought on by the member for Nightcliff. It is in the spirit of good government.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. After negotiations with the other side and discussion with the Leader of the Opposition, I seek leave to make another amendment.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: We can do that, but let us exhaust this first please.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, my, oh my, how things change in this House. I recall sitting on that side of the House for four years, when ministerial statements were issued the evening or afternoon before and were so often documents that would be denigrated by the CLP opposition, described as ‘puff pieces’ and scoffed at. Yet now, with the realisation of minority government, suddenly these ministerial statements are very precious. I should add they are prepared and circulated widely by public servants who are in communication with the stakeholders. So on this issue of them being confidential documents – they are certainly not marked as such, not even an embargo on them at the time they are circulated – all we are guided by is convention.
The reaction or the overreaction of the government about what they described as ‘leaked documents’ is a bit of a stretch and has been overkill. I confess that I am the member who circulated, with very careful consideration, a ministerial statement from the Chief Minister about where things were up to in Nhulunbuy following the announcement in November 2013 that Rio Tinto was closing its alumina refinery, as a result of a failure to negotiate a gas deal, or a reneged gas deal with the government.
That is a pretty significant event for a local member. It was the most significant, catastrophic event that has occurred in Nhulunbuy in its 40-odd year history: 1100 jobs going; businesses suffering; families moving; and the mental anguish, quite apart from the economic impact. It is the most significant event I have had to deal with as the local member. I cannot remember exactly what the date was on the statement, but it would have been some time perhaps between late November and February, perhaps even March.
When I read the statement I discussed with a couple of colleagues about whether or not I might send it on to the Gove Community Advisory Committee. I was responsible for instigating this committee on the day the public meeting was held in Nhulunbuy with hundreds of people attending and hundreds outside the door trying to hear what the Chief Minister and Rio Tinto had to say about the way forward for our community. This Gove Community Advisory Committee worked tirelessly to provide advice to government to try to genuinely engage and work with both tiers of government, federal and Territory, with the very best interests of Nhulunbuy and its future at heart.
I circulated that statement late at night at 10 pm or 10.30 pm. I thought very carefully about the words I used in the e-mail providing a message to the people of that group. I did not step out with an anti-CLP message; it was a non-political message. It was simply inviting feedback. I needed to know whether or not those representatives on the Gove Community Advisory Committee thought the contents of this statement matched the sentiments and reality of what was happening on the ground. I worded it very carefully because I had a hunch it would come back at me, that government would be aware I had circulated it.
I had never previously circulated a ministerial statement to anybody. But as we have heard from the member for Karama, we know historically that of course these statements have been circulated to stakeholder groups. I did not circulate it to the media. I did not launch it on the Gove Noticeboard Facebook page, which has 4000-plus subscribers. I could have, but I did not want to. I thought that if I targeted the 22-member committee of the Gove Community Advisory Committee and got their feedback then that would help me inform debate the following day on the statement and do what is my responsibility, that is, to represent the views of the people of Nhulunbuy.
As a result we were no longer given a heads-up with ministerial statements. It has become even worse. I am not quite sure what we have done to deserve it, but they are now tabled at the time they are being delivered. How can anybody expect elected members of parliament to participate in a debate when they have not even seen the document being circulated? We are representatives. That means we represent people in our electorates. Of course we need to engage with them about ministerial statements where we see that it is appropriate to do so.
The actions of the government in ceasing to circulate in advance statements is punitive, and is designed to gag debate and have absolute control over the direction the debate takes. It is meant to gag members who may want a little more time to solicit the views of those they represent, whether they be a shadow minister or it is – as for me in this case – a local-member issue.
What is it that the government fears about this? I can assure the Leader of Government Business and the government that it is not our intention to come in here, day after day, now that you are a minority government, to amend standing orders to the nth degree, as the Leader of Government Business said. It is not our intention, given that I stepped out last week on behalf of the Labor opposition and announced a discussion paper about the future of our parliament and parliamentary reforms. The Leader of Government Business had a good crack at that during Question Time, wanting to make fun of it. That demonstrates how out of touch they are.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Territorians are tired of what they see going on in this parliament. They want to see change and mature and informed debate. It is about being reasonable and open. For that reason I fully support the motion before the House to amend this standing order to allow circulation of ministerial statements.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business)(by leave): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank honourable members for their forbearance in this matter.
After negotiation with the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Nelson I move that we insert after the word ‘made’ a new sentence: such statements, when circulated, are to be treated with confidence and any reproduction in the media is to be considered a breach of the Code of Conduct.
That is a fairly general term. Confidence will mean that it could be circulated to a limited group of people if necessary for the quality of debate to be improved. However, it is still up to the individual member to ensure it does not find its way into the media before the minister delivers the statement.
Mr Deputy Speaker, that is the wording and the intent of the amendment to the motion. We have the acquiescence of the member for Nelson and the opposition members, so let us see if we can get that one off the ground.
Amendment agreed to.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank everyone who participated in this debate for their contributions. We are elected by our communities to represent their views, and in doing so it is important for us to be in touch. That is why you will see every one of us holding community barbecues. Some of us sit by the road, some of us get to sit at the beautiful foreshore. It is our role in this parliament to represent the views of our communities.
Restoring the convention of providing non-government members of this House with statements the day before will allow us to have a more thorough policy debate rather than a puff piece with a political speech after it. Our community wants us to have informed policy debates and this to be a House of policy debates.
We must remember these statements are not just written by the minister the night before but are developed by public servants. Ministerial advisers provide their input, and of course they are signed off by ministers. Ministers are allowed to seek information and opinions and to discuss ideas in preparing their ministerial statements. To have a proper policy debate, one would expect it would be a common courtesy that shadow ministers are also afforded the opportunity to talk to key select stakeholders and important people about these statements.
It was interesting to hear the points from the members for Araluen and Karama, both former ministers. The member for Araluen spoke about enriching the debate, and the member for Karama from the perspective of being a former minister and knowing shadow ministers had researched and spoken to key stakeholders was a good thing.
In this House today, with our new minority government, we have seen a positive step of resolving to provide statements to all members the day before. It will allow them to research, and participate in an informed debate. Surely everyone can agree that is a good thing for the Territory parliament.
It is a privilege for me to be the member for Nightcliff, an elected member of this Legislative Assembly. We all take that responsibility very seriously. We want to participate in informed debate, and being provided with these statements so we can is good. We have seen the government members in the past gag views which are different to theirs. They have done that in a number of ways such as not giving us statements. Sharing ideas is a positive step. We should allow for proper debate, not simply one view because that is the only view we are allowed to hear.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this afternoon’s resolution is a positive step for the Northern Territory parliament. All members now have access to ministerial statements the day before so we can have an informed debate that will benefit the whole of the Northern Territory. I thank all of the members who have spoken to this motion.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
Continued from 17 June 2015.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, the opposition welcomes this bill. We support the amendment to the Domestic and Family Violence Bill. Our Whip, the member for Nightcliff, provided advice to the government last night that we would support this bill. I thank the minister’s office, as well as the hard-working officials in the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice, for providing a briefing on why this amendment has been brought forward.
It is very clear that the amendment to section 42 of the act is about closing a loophole which has the potential to leave victims of domestic and family violence vulnerable and exposed because of some ambiguity around the wording of how police record a matter. As the explanatory statement said:
The issuing of a DVO is obviously an important measure for police, providing protection to a victim of domestic and family violence. It allows a DVO to be in place to ensure a person’s safety in urgent circumstances or, as the minister said in his second reading speech:
This is all very sensible in providing an automatic protection. However, the ambiguity, I understand, arose from the wording of reporting arrangements of the authorised officer. Apparently the authorised officer had to be a rank of senior sergeant or above. In practical terms an officer of that rank may not necessarily have been on hand to physically complete the authorisation, hence a delay in completing the DVO. As we know in some of our remote stations there may not be an officer of that rank. As an elected representative from a remote area of northeast Arnhem Land, I can see that these very circumstances would arise in my own electorate and other parts of the Northern Territory as well.
Recognising the loophole existed has apparently been evidenced by an increasing number of respondents who argued that the police DVO, which has the particulars recorded by an officer who is not an authorised officer, is invalid. Thankfully, that interpretation has not been widely adopted by the courts. However, in the interest of safety of victims of domestic violence, this amendment is being made to put the matter beyond any doubt.
I acknowledge the magistrate – though I do not know his or her name – who escalated this loophole with the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice, which brings this amendment before us. I also acknowledge the agency and the minister for recognising that this loophole needed to be closed.
With a review of the Domestic and Family Violence Act and an issues paper launched in April of this year with submissions which closed at the end of July, I thank the minister for bringing forward this amendment now and not waiting for the completion of the broader review which will, no doubt, bring some new amendments to the act. If this amendment makes one person – woman or child – safer, then it is the right thing to do.
It was under the Labor government I was part of that we saw the introduction of a Domestic and Family Violence Act in 2007. I recall in my very early months as an elected member in this House participating in an important debate about amending the act – it was, in fact, in November 2008 – to make it mandatory to report domestic and family violence, and to recognise it as a community issue for which we all must accept responsibility in reporting domestic and family violence, and not turn a blind eye because such acts of violence might simply occur behind closed doors. We cannot say, ‘It is none of my business’, when we must accept, as a community, that it is indeed the business of all of us.
As we know, domestic and family violence continues to be massive issue for our community and our nation. I had the great honour of attending an address last week delivered by Australian of the Year, Rosie Batty, who has risen to national prominence born out of the tragic murder of her son at cricket practice in suburban middle-class Melbourne by his father, Ms Batty’s ex-husband, a known perpetrator of domestic and family violence. I was pleased to see that the Attorney-General also managed to attend this event to hear Ms Batty’s address.
Her strong stand, her articulation of the uncomfortable, heartbreaking and sometimes horrific truths about domestic and family violence were uttered such a short time after her son’s murder. She has led a national stand and conversation against the scourge that is domestic and family violence.
I was disappointed the auditorium at the Darwin Convention Centre was not overflowing with people who wanted to hear Rosie Batty speak and then participate in the Q&A forum which followed, which included Police Commissioner Kershaw, obviously Ms Batty, Charlie King and – forgive me, her name escapes me but she is the woman who heads up the White Ribbon organisation in the Northern Territory.
At this forum, the telling moment was when the emcee, Charlie King, a known and dedicated campaigner against domestic and family violence, invited the men in the audience to stand up briefly so they could be counted. Out of the 150 or so women, perhaps there were just nine or 10 men who attended this event. Through his No More campaign, Charlie King, instead of focusing on the victims of domestic and family violence, puts the call out to men across Australia to unite against violence and abuse within the family.
Seeing that show of men versus women in the audience highlighted to us all that domestic and family violence is a gender equality issue, and that we will fail in the battle to grapple and get rid of domestic and family violence if we cannot engage more men in the conversation and have more men stand up and say no more to domestic and family violence.
I was very pleased to learn that Ms Batty was able to visit a remote community, and had travelled with our Minister for Women’s Policy to the Tiwi Islands the day before to meet with women there to hear firsthand their stories and experiences of dealing with domestic and family violence in their community. As we know, it is important that all women have their voices heard when we know that, on average, two women are murdered every week in Australia as victims of domestic and family violence.
I thank the minister for bringing forward this bill and can confirm that the key stakeholders I have circulated this bill to, including NAAJA and NAAFVLS, have no issue with it.
I look forward to seeing what shape the review into the act will take by way of amendments which I am sure will be coming forward. I have seen at least one submission to that review and hope the views of stakeholders are considered and taken on board in order to make for stronger legislation.
While having good legislation in place is important to protect the victims of domestic and family violence and deal with the perpetrators, I urge the minister, who has responsibility for the relatively new domestic violence directorate within his agency of Attorney-General and Justice, to look broadly beyond the legislative instruments to try to work to shift and change community attitudes about domestic and family violence.
I am sure the minister will recall our exchange during the June estimates under the output group of the domestic violence directorate. We at least reached agreement that we do not really want to be opening more shelters and beds for women and children escaping domestic violence. We were talking specifically about the good work that happens in the Alice Springs Women’s Shelter. The minister had put to me whether I was suggesting we need to open more shelters. But we agreed the investment needs to be in prevention rather than having to see more women seeking shelter.
I like to think the Minister for Women’s Policy and Men’s Policy is also actively engaged with the community at a grassroots level to educate, change attitudes, challenge beliefs, confront issues of responsibility and lead a much-needed path for change. It is a responsibility which lies with all of us to combat and confront domestic and family violence across the Northern Territory.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend this bill to the House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I too support this amendment to the Domestic and Family Violence Act. While it is a simple change it is a very important one. When the minister made his second reading speech he summed it up very well:
As the minister said there are times when this is required because of the urgency of the situation. It appears there has been some discussion in the legal circles as to whether the way the act has been written could be challenged, so it makes sense. You would not want a matter going to court and being thrown out on a technicality when the person who signed it was basically trying to save someone’s life or save them from serious injury. It makes a lot of sense. As he said:
That is what this whole matter is about. As small as it is, it removes that circumstance which technically could be challenged. We do not want that.
The member for Nhulunbuy raised the issue of domestic violence. I was also at Rosie Batty’s lecture – if I can call it that – recently and I listened carefully to what she had to say. I asked her a question and said on the day that whilst domestic violence is a major issue in our society, violence in general is a major issue. We have to be careful we do not get this into a gender situation and focus purely on one gender.
I worked on the island Ms Batty visited. I have seen horrendous fights between women, a lot caused by jealousy – absolutely terrible – which were cheered on. I have umpired football matches. You always get some violence – I should call it aggression – in football matches and that is normal; it is an aggressive game. But I have seen young boys walk up and smash someone in the face.
We need to not only emphasise that domestic violence is not okay, but violence in general is not okay. It is not a way to sort out problems. Otherwise we could turn this place into a boxing ring. If I disagreed with the minister for Planning – I do not know if I want to pick on him in a boxing ring, he is about six foot tall and a lot heavier than me. We do not sort our differences out by violence but by other means. We need to place more emphasis on violence not being the solution.
Look at the world today and the terrible situation some countries are in. I watch Al Jazeera television in the morning mainly because they present news and not gossip about trivial matters. There are some nations in the world where women and children are suffering because of war, and war is violence.
Although there is a focus on domestic violence and it is important we stop that, there is no doubt the majority of people affected by domestic violence are women. Overall we should place a greater emphasis on saying that violence is not the solution to working out problems.
I enjoyed the talk by Rosie Batty. She raised a few issues that sometimes are not raised, for instance psychological bullying and people’s finances being controlled by someone else, which can be a form of bullying. Obviously that does not come into what we are talking about today, which is physical violence, but it was good to hear what she had to say. From my point of view, it raised some matters that I did not consider as part of the broader domestic violence issues.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not have an issue with the amendment today. I had a briefing from the Law Society as well. I also had a briefing from the department, which I appreciate. I support this amendment.
Mrs PRICE (Women’s Policy): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the members for Nhulunbuy and Nelson. I support the Domestic and Family Violence Amendment Bill 2015 introduced by the Attorney-General.
Picture a woman in a small community physically beaten her whole life, where removing her from the situation would only bring more violence upon her or death; or a marriage where when a husband who has raped a women so brutally is convicted of such a crime and when he passes his brothers can have their way with her. Picture a young woman with children told by a man, whilst in a drunken rage, that if she ever leaves him he will hunt her down and kill her. Picture a young woman who is physically beaten and in intensive care in the hospital, only to have her family blame her for making him angry. She deserved that, they say. Picture a young woman who has suffered beatings, disrespected by an unfaithful partner time and time again. She eventually loses it and kills him.
Now picture a woman who has been beaten, dragged around, raped and shunned by the community for speaking out and leaving him, accused of being white but silenced for being black, having to move away for many years from the bullying and dominance of a governance system of violence, mental and physical. Every day her phone rings with news of another death, another young woman’s life lost to domestic violence or drink-driving.
Despite these adversities, she rises to stand up and speak for the young and old victims, to show that it is not acceptable anymore. Yes, it is hard. Yes, this is my story. I can contest to the consequences of using your voice. Voices like mine are not welcomed and become a catalyst of personal attacks.
Many people do not understand what Aboriginal women face in their lives, in remote regions particularly. This bill will support our plight. This bill will also enable the implementation of the second national plan to reduce domestic violence to be more effective.
I thank you, Attorney-General, for bringing it to this House.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank honourable members for their support. I do not think there is much to add to this. The matters of domestic violence are well known and have been articulated in this place.
As the Attorney-General, having shared ministerial responsibility with the Minister for Women’s Policy, the establishment of the Safety is Everyone’s Right policy has positioned the Territory not only well amongst the other jurisdictions, but, in my opinion and the opinion of many third parties, has positioned us best of all jurisdictions. We do not treat domestic violence as an isolated idea; we treat it as something government needs to respond to in its entirety, not at Executive Director or CEO level, but at the level of practitioners who respond to domestic violence issues on a daily basis.
As a consequence we now have the community safety committees occurring in Darwin, Katherine, Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Palmerston and, soon, Yuendumu, if I am not mistaken. The great appeal of that is it enables those who have frontline contact with families in crisis brought about by domestic violence to surround those families and effectively case manage them.
Up until now a police officer arriving at a scene would have gone through the process described in the legislative amendment before the House. That would have been the end of it until such time as that person was charged. What of the wife? If she was injured, there would have been medical attention. What of the children? There would have been almost no chance of any form of intervention or support from the NGO sector. The NGO sector would often not know, until such time as the wife and children sought succour from that NGO.
That is not to say that the only perpetrators are male, but I talk about domestic violence in a his-and-her structure because it is the most common occurrence. I ask honourable members to forgive me for my generalities in this space.
What we have in Alice Springs is nothing shy of amazing because we see 11 government departments, the frontline workers of which – not anybody up the food chain, the people who deal with these families on a daily basis – are creating a plan around particular families. When the police walk into that community and go about the business of arresting a person for domestic violence against their spouse, they then have that information that the police locked up Bill Smith for punching out Mary Smith in a domestic violence situation.
Those in the Health department who are sitting around the same table, say, ‘Yes, we know the Smith family, but we will throw some help around them’. The child protection system says, ‘Yes, the Smith kids. We will keep an eye on them. How will we keep an eye on them? We will enlist the Smith kids’ teachers.’ The Smith kids’ teachers will be able to speak to the child protection and health authorities to make sure the kids are not showing signs of undue stress caused by Bill Smith’s violence against his missus. Housing also has a role in this space, and then there are a number of other government departments that also sit around the table, including the federal government – Gott sei Dank – because that means there is also a capacity to manipulate things like income management, if it should be required, through the scourge of our community, which is the passive welfare system.
On top of that, we also share information with the NGO sector. So maybe there is space when we are throwing assistance around a family, for, let us say, St Vincent de Paul or any other number of NGOs, to also support the family. So you have about 20 people from a myriad of different organisations – government and non-government, federal and state – sitting there and asking, ‘What can we do with the Smith family? How do we surround them?’
When the trial program ran in Alice Springs there was a 3% return rate. I can tell you, as a copper of many years’ experience, once you got used to dealing with a violent family, a 3% return rate was unheard of. It would be normally 30% or 50%. That is anecdotal; I do not have any statistics at my fingertips to prove it. But there were certain houses you were used to going to. A 3% return rate – well, I have to say that is nothing shy of astonishing.
But that means you surround the whole family and share information. Of course, you get a little pushback with these sorts of policy structures because the first question you invariably get when you deal with policy structures like this is, ‘What about privacy?’ My answer is, quite simply Maslow’s hierarchy of needs has five levels. The first two levels deal with safety, security, shelter and sustenance – the staff of life: the fundamental human rights that keep us alive. Privacy is not covered by safety, shelter, security and sustenance. If you had such a thing as a Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, then it infers, logically, a hierarchy of rights. So, the right to safety, shelter, sustenance and security have precedence over the right to privacy. If you think about it, it makes sense.
I would be mortified if I had exposed a child to danger because I was too busy protecting that child’s privacy when their right to safety was in peril. It is bizarre, yet so often you still hear that argument in all sorts of circles, ‘Oh, we cannot share information. It is a breach of the right to privacy.’ Here is the drum, guys. No, it is not. It is perfectly lawful and within the terms of the privacy legislation that operates in the Northern Territory.
For those reasons we are achieving good results and we are continuing, as I understand it, to get good results at these committees as they roll out now. If you think about it, it intuitively makes sense because the plan you put around Bill Smith and his family will be different to the plan you put around the Jones family, or for that matter the Urakaringa family, the family from Yuendumu or a family from Tennant Creek, because each family will have its own problems. The more remote you are from your decision maker, the less effective those decisions can be. The decision-making process must be allowed to go all the way to the front line. It is our job, as community leaders, to support our decision makers, even when they screw up, because you are not going to get every one right.
If you want to show some courage in the leadership, political or senior bureaucrat environment, trust your staff. As long as they are acting in good faith and on the right side of gross negligence or criminality, they are doing their job. Let them get on with it and back them. When something does turn to crap, so what? For every one they get wrong, they will get nine right, and they will engage with their job in a way they have not engaged with it in a long time because they are trusted to do their job on the front line – that is exactly what this policy is about – and they make the right calls.
There is the Newtonian law of physics that says that with two objects in space, the gravitational effect of one on the other is directly and inversely proportional to your distance from it. That rule can also apply for decision makers. Your satisfaction with a decision maker will be directly and inversely proportional to your distance from that decision maker.
I believe the intervention that was instigated a few years ago by the former Howard government, was noble in intent, but awful in execution. When I saw how the intervention was rolling out on the ground when compared to the intent of Canberra, I often got the impression that somebody was trying to knit a jumper off a pattern whilst wearing baseball gloves. The consequence was something that did not look anything like the pattern and was hardly fit for purpose.
It is even through me as a decision maker in Darwin. I know places like Yuendumu, Tennant Creek, Hermannsburg and all those other places in remote communities because I lived and worked in them for many years. But I do not know the dynamic of what is happening right now. I do not know what is happening in a particular family – the Smith family or the Jones family or whatever it is family – in these remote communities, because I am not the person on the ground. So whilst I could probably make more finessed decisions than necessarily somebody based in Canberra who could not find Yuendumu on a map, it still would not place me close enough to be finessed enough to make the right decisions for each family. You transfer that responsibility down the food chain so the people who are working with that family on a day-to-day basis can call the shots. That is how you will protect people.
If there is a change of government in August next year, then one of the things I urge the incoming government to do, if it is the Labor Party, is keep a very close eye on this program because it is a world leader. We will become the benchmark nationally and internationally. I am very proud of the work we have done.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I have banged on enough. I am critically aware of the time frame. As a consequence of that I will say nothing more than to thank honourable members for the support in relation to this commonsense amendment. As a parliament, we speak with one voice in relation to domestic violence, which is of one strident resistance that puts the victim in the forefront of our minds.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 17 June 2015.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will be leading the response on behalf of the opposition to this bill. I thank the minister and the officials from the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice for the provided to me last week on this bill and other bills.
If the figures quoted in the minister’s second reading speech are correct then there would be general agreement that the recovery of fines is a very significant issue in the Northern Territory. As an opposition we are not convinced that importing punitive measures from other jurisdictions, without close consideration of the Territory’s unique geography, demographic and law enforcement environment, is the best approach to recovering outstanding fines. I will return to that important issue shortly.
A good starting point in this debate on punitive measures would be a more detailed analysis of the 63 000 individual fine defaulters identified by the minister’s second reading speech. I am not about to set a bunch of public servants scrambling to find figures but it would be interesting to know where they live, how many of these 63 000 fine defaulters have left the Territory, how many unpaid fines each defaulter has and how many defaulters have unpaid fines for three months, 12 months, two years or perhaps even longer. It would be good to see a detailed analysis of the defaulted fines so we could seriously inform the debate on the success or otherwise of the punitive measures proposed in this bill. That analysis might also inform better recovery measures than the ones proposed in this bill.
To contextualise the measures proposed it would also be useful to know how many fines have been issued for what types of offences, how many have been paid and how much revenue has been received in each of the preceding three years. Debate on the bill would also be enhanced by more information about the resources deployed by the Fines Recovery Unit and some explanation of current practices and why they have not been successful in recovering fines. I will, as we move through this debate, raise one practice which I do not think works and needs to be revised and modernised.
If the problem is one of simply underresourcing the Fines Recovery Unit then the simple answer is to address that issue up front. It would be helpful if the minister could advise the House how many staff the Fines Recovery Unit has at its disposal to develop strategies and recover fines, the value of work outsourced, whether there are any other resource deficits such as IT capability and the unit’s budget generally. I suspect I might have to wait until estimates next year to get some of those answers.
Deliberations on the proposed punitive provisions would also benefit from some explanation of what has been tried so far to recover fines and why it has failed. Does recovery action rely on hard copy and electronic communication, phone calls or personal contact? Are other strategies implemented? A clear question is why the current processes are not working and how they might be improved.
One key issue is how many of the unrecovered fines relate to hardship and incapacity to pay. In this context I draw the minister’s attention to a scheme operating in New South Wales to assist vulnerable people to satisfy their fine debts. Under this scheme Work and Development Orders, or WDOs, allow eligible people to satisfy their debt through unpaid work with approved organisations or by undertaking certain courses of treatment.
The New South Wales model includes financial and other counselling and treatment for drug and alcohol programs, the same service provided by the former SMART Court we had in the Northern Territory. The SMART Court dealt with those with offending behaviour as a result of substance misuse, but regrettably the Attorney-General saw fit to dismantle it a couple of years ago even though it was working quite successfully.
Eligible people under the WDO scheme in New South Wales include those who have a mental illness, an intellectual disability, a cognitive impairment, who might be homeless, experience economic hardship or have a serious addiction to drugs, alcohol or volatile substances. A Work and Development Order can be supported by a registered health practitioner. If a Work and Development Order is approved, all defaulted fines are included on the order and enforcement action is discontinued.
I ask the minister, if he has not already done so, to carefully consider the scheme of Work and Development Orders operating in New South Wales and determine if the relevant measures might be beneficial and efficacious in the Northern Territory context. Work and Development Orders are far more likely to get better outcomes for some individuals and families compared to wheel clamps and very public naming and shaming.
I am sure the Territory’s Aboriginal legal aid services could offer the minister some valuable insights when it comes to alternative arrangements for fines recovery from our most vulnerable citizens.
I now turn to an issue I mentioned earlier about recovering fines in the context of the Territory’s unique geography, demography and social environment. I am not suggesting that all outstanding fines belong to Indigenous Territorians. That may well not be the case, but NAAJA has confirmed it has a number of clients with fines totalling over $10 000. I asked during the briefing about the number of people we are talking about who are fine defaulters of $10 000 or more. I asked if it was more than 50, 100 or more. I was told it was somewhere between 50 and 100.
NAAJA highlighted, apart from confirming it has a number of clients with fines totalling over $10 000, that many of these clients are in entrenched poverty, do not have strong literacy and numeracy skills and do not have the capacity to independently sort out their fines. As we all know, as it has been very topical recently, with shrinking legal aid budgets they have even less chance for support to sort out their fines unless they want to represent themselves in court, which is unlikely and doomed to fail.
Those of us who represent remote electorates, as well as public and private businesses who deal with the bush, know how hard it is to communicate with citizens and clients in remote locations. I come across school teachers who might have the wherewithal to get mail sorted, yet still struggle to have things sent to them in remote locations. If it is difficult for them, imagine how difficult it is for our remote Indigenous residents who live full-time in these places. We have all received letters and communications returned from remote locations.
In the case of Indigenous Territorians there are cultural practices which involve name changes arising from sorry business, where somebody changes names because it was very similar to the name of somebody who has recently passed. It could be a period of several years before that name is again used. Marriage also sees name changes.
For our remote Indigenous Territorians there is mobility that comes with seasonal travel between communities which is the result of a range of factors. Sometimes it is the Darwin Show, but much of the time it is cultural reasons that see people become mobile and therefore not at their – I guess it calls for the usual place of residence.
Not to mention the issue of language barriers and letters which are simply not understood by non-English speakers and other letters which go astray. Letters sent to Nhulunbuy will not be delivered if they are not addressed to a post office box. If they are addressed to a street address, even if it is a current and accurate residential street address in Nhulunbuy, Australia Post will not deliver it. There is no street delivery in Nhulunbuy; it has to be a post office box. Even though I have lived there for 25 years I have all my mail sorted with various institutions now. But I wondered why I was not receiving certain statements and important documents from my bank. It was because they were using my street address and not my post office box, so that mail was being returned to sender. Even though the wonderful people in Nhulunbuy Post Office know me and my post office box, their resourcing is such that they simply return to sender.
These are difficult challenges in essential communications for public and private entities. I am very curious to know what the Fines Recovery Unit spends on mail and what the savings might be if they could find alternative means of communicating with fine defaulters. Perhaps that is a job for the Red Tape Reduction Team. Is the Red Tape Reduction Team adequately resourced to be finding these savings in government? I am not sure; you might have a view on that, minister.
Failure of mail to reach its intended recipient can trigger a chain of what should be avoidable events which can bring about accumulated fines, for all of the reasons I have just listed regarding mobility of people, name changes, or whatever reasons. Let me give you a very real example one of our Caucus members provided as she went in to bat for one of her constituents recently. It is to do with a Darwin woman and her family who, due to serious illness, had to relocate interstate for medical treatment. They were gone for some time and arrived home to discover that because of a missed dog registration requirement, fines had accumulated in the family’s absence and her licence had also been cancelled. There was a double whammy with accumulated fines and she had to renew her licence.
I am sure people would say ‘Well if you are going away somewhere, you need someone to check your mail or get a house sitter so you can avoid all these things’. I am providing one example but it was a very real scenario. Regrettably this case did not meet the circumstances of hardship. I have not seen the guidelines about hardship but I did ask in the briefing I had last week how decisions would be made about hardship and concessions for people. I believe the member for Nelson has received those hardship guidelines. I can only assume the director – or perhaps there is more than one director – will be dealing with hardship cases, literally on a case-by-case basis.
Given that so many transactions in this day and age occur electronically rather than through Australia Post, have we reached a time in government where consideration surely should be given to modernising our communications and how we reach people? We know vehicle registration renewals can now be done online through MVR. It was under my colleague, the member for Barkly, that this process was being worked through and developed. With the change of government it is the CLP which has delivered that initiative which saves people a lot of time and makes payment instantaneous. It will not work for everybody but it works for many Territorians. Let us face it; it is happening in interstate jurisdictions as well.
A sizeable proportion of our community do all their banking online. Although it can be annoying at times, I get an SMS from my banking institution to remind me if I have missed a credit card payment. It is instantaneous, in my hand, and in the busy life I lead with paper everywhere, sometimes these electronic communications are more effective; they are in your face. It is an important reminder that sees you avoid missing payments or perhaps repaying a fine.
In fact, as a disincentive to use the old snail mail, Telstra actually charges a fee if you want a paper bill delivered. I think you pay $2 to have a paper bill delivered. That is all about encouraging people to go online and manage their accounts that way.
Surely an electronic notification system would go some way to adults who, for whatever reason, miss the mail or choose to receive these notifications for a host of reasons?
The member for Barkly is perhaps going to talk more specifically about the challenges of remote electorates and how there is a cohort of people in remote locations and from non-English backgrounds who would find an electronic system challenging. Maybe not. At the same time, I see in many communities there is an investment in building people’s computer literacy, particularly associated with financial literacy to be able to utilise these tools that are secure, efficient and allow payment. In my view and the view of my opposition colleagues – I am not speaking for the Independents; they will make their own contribution to this debate and make clear their own position – it would be a pity if these challenges were to give rise to wheel clamping and naming and shaming when the real challenge is effective communication.
I note from the follow-up to questions I had from the briefing in the minister’s office about the success or otherwise of naming and shaming provisions in other jurisdictions, that they have returned to seeing fines paid. That is all up for debate but that principle of naming and shaming simply does not align with Labor values.
I should also add that I contacted the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner last week because there is a consequential amendment to the Anti-Discrimination Act as a result of this. There was a commendation that the government had been thinking laterally enough to consider that a provision was needed within the Anti-Discrimination Act to ensure it would not be unlawfully discriminating against anybody who had their name placed on a naming and shaming website. I did not ask the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner her view on naming and shaming and its merits or otherwise, but there was acknowledgement that the consequential amendment is a positive one and the government was thinking laterally about this.
We notified the Attorney-General and the government last night through our Whip to say we would not be supporting this bill for all the matters I have outlined here. But in the interest of developing effective solutions to recovering outstanding fines, I am interested to hear from the minister if he is able to provide the information I have requested about the backlog of fines and the operations of the Fines Recovery Unit. Are they adequately resourced? What do we know about the backlog of fines? How many people have moved interstate?
He might also consider the merits of a scheme for Work and Development Orders for fine defaulters along the lines of the one operating in New South Wales. I saw him nodding as I talked about people from disadvantaged backgrounds, including some of NAAJA’s clients, being on that list of fine defaulters of $10 000 or more.
I am also be keen to know what process will be in place to advise the community of the changes and these new punitive measures government is proposing to introduce. At the briefing we talked about the hierarchy of notifications and the escalation of those measures that will see you arrive at a point where your wheel may be clamped or you will find yourself on a name-and-shame website.
Mr Deputy Speaker, that is really all I have to say on the bill. I believe the member for Barkly will speak. I am interested to hear what other members of the House, including our Independents, have to say.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, I only have a few comments to make on this legislation. I thank the minister and the staff from the department who provided a briefing. I have since put a list of questions through to the minister’s office and received some replies. I will pass comment and ask some questions.
Yes, I acknowledge this is in other jurisdictions. I looked at Western Australia in particular. Whilst they are a long way over in the west they tend to be ahead of the game when it comes to this kind of legislation.
I acknowledge the hierarchy of sanctions but the question up front is how has it become $10 000 for 666 people? That is an enormous number of parking fines and other types of fines such as speeding fines …
Mr Elferink: They just screw them up and throw them on the floor.
Ms PURICK: I acknowledge the interjection from the minister, but why was there not some kind of demand? Perhaps there have been demands. Why has something like this not happened before?
Where did the government look to draw from other legislation? Which state did they find has the best model legislation? I thought Western Australia was pretty good, but I did not look at Tasmania or South Australia.
Yes, there are written demands for money which can be thrown in the bin. Many people probably do that. To suspend the driver’s licence may be difficult in the Territory because many people drive unlicensed, as we well know. Presuming they do not have a driver’s licence then they will move to the car. I am not sure as many cars in the Northern Territory are not registered; mostly they are, but many are not as you read about unlicensed people and unregistered cars in the paper every day.
You then move to the clamping. I asked the minister’s office what kind of clamping would be used. It would go around the chassis and cannot be taken off the wheel. However, if you try to take the clamp off you would be interfering and could be fined for that. I thank the minister for providing information on the kind of clamp. I am interested to know why the minister has chosen that clamp, because there are other clamps around Australia which are used for securing wheels of any moving vehicle.
There are 10 clamps so that is probably five for Darwin and five for Palmerston. There is an arrangement with Darwin city council but do you have an arrangement with the Palmerston city council, given you will be rolling this out in Palmerston? Do you have the same arrangement with Palmerston city council? If so, is that a written arrangement, a memorandum of understanding or a contract?
You state there are 666 individuals and body corporates which owe over $10 000. Are all those people still in the Territory? Will you be chasing people who may have left the Territory?
In regard to the clamping, you say you will use Scorpion Wheel Clamps. How did you arrive at those clamps because there are many others on the market? At the briefing I questioned who would be removing or putting on the clamps and what kind of qualifications or training they would have. That has been answered.
‘Mobilise an officer’ can be a bailiff, a Director of the Fines Recovery Unit, Deputy Director or another person authorised by the Director of the Fines Recovery Unit, and that is pretty fair. I still have concerns that it does not matter who these people are, if they go to a premises or to a car to put a clamp on it and the owner of the car is there and is six feet four inches, they will take exception to it …
Mr Wood: And they live in the rural area.
Ms PURICK: And they live in the rural area, potentially. It is just Palmerston. Oh, that is right; their car could be parked in town …
Mr Wood: The rural area is exempt.
Ms PURICK: The rural area is exempt and that is good. Leave it that way because we are law-abiding citizens there.
Western Australia has this outsourced to a security firm, and the people who apply the clamps are security officers with security officer training. I am concerned about the reaction from an individual. If they are not paying their fines, which are up to $10 000, clearly they have complete disregard for the law. If a bailiff comes along and says, ‘I am going to clamp your vehicle’, I have concerns there might be an altercation. Perhaps you might have to trial it, which is what you are doing. But you will run into issues with some people in our community.
Assuming you have gone through all the sanctions and are now up to the clamping stage in the streets around Darwin and Palmerston, there is also the prospect they can be clamped in private residences. I have serious concerns about that. I understand they have a right of entry. I do not want to see a banana freckle campaign all over again. I have spoken to outside sources to get advice on this. I spoke to the Law Society, some people in the tow truck industry and people of that nature. The notes from the minister’s office say, ‘It is envisaged, similar to other jurisdictions, that wheel clamping will be extended to defaulters’ residences in the early hours of the morning or in the evening when they are most likely to be at home’. You will go to a person’s property at 2 am and put a clamp on their vehicle and not expect a reaction? Is that because you will enter the property, knock on their gate, rattle the gate, ring them and say, ‘Come out, we want to put a clamp on your vehicle’. That will not go down well either.
Mr McCarthy: After they clamp the Rottweiler.
Ms PURICK: After they clamp the Rottweiler. Learn from the banana freckle campaign with the lock-the-gate campaign and the angst and pushback from residents when officers tried to enter properties. I want clarified exactly the right of the bailiff/Director of the Fines Recovery Unit to enter a property at 2 am to put a clamp on a vehicle of someone you believe owes $10 000, and what is the privacy that may well have been breached because it concerns me. If someone came onto my property at 2 am because I owed $10 000 there would not be a warm reception, that is for sure. I am sure out of those 666 people quite a few of them that are very …
Mr Wood: That dog will protect you.
Ms PURICK: One of the five dogs that are meant to protect me.
I want to get some clarification about that please, minister. All of my other questions have been asked about the demographics and people taking clamps off.
I was concerned about insurance if damage was done to the vehicle. If it is shown that the officer putting the clamp on has been negligent then, yes, there can be a claim against the government. I did not want that to happen, that they are asked to take it out against insurance. Having said that, if the car is not registered and they are not licensed there would not be any insurance anyway. I wanted to clarify protection of people with slightly more expensive cars than the rest of us.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I only have a few points as well.
I am hopefully correct that you said we have in excess of $58m in fines and the new enforcement measures will be aimed at those high-end defaulters owing $10 000 or more. These are not accurate figures because I do not know how much above $10 000 is owed, but if you have 666 people who each owe $10 000 my calculation is that will get you $6.6m, which leaves you $52m or $51m ...
Mr Elferink: Some of them are restitution orders worth several hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Mr WOOD: Maybe it is worth explaining that because of the maths.
What is recoverable? Have you done an assessment? It hits the headlines that government is owed $58m. Has there been an analysis of what you have a reasonable chance of recovering? Councils wipe off debt; it gets to a point where it is not worth worrying about.
I also had concerns about going onto a property. I also had a briefing from the Law Society; they were raising that issue as well. I am interested to hear the response. The member for Goyder summed it up pretty well.
There is mention of an alternative way of immobilising a vehicle. I am interested to know what that technique is. Do you take out the battery? I am interested to know what the alternative way of immobilising a vehicle is.
Some of these questions have come up later; I had a briefing. A defaulter who lives in Darwin parks his car at East Arm. Can you clamp the car at East Arm? It does not belong to the Darwin city council or to Palmerston council. If you know the car is parked there, can you immobilise it in another municipality?
The other issue might be easily solved. It has come up in discussions that someone is parking on land in Cavenagh Street that belongs to the Darwin city council and not paying their fines. What gives the right to demobilise a vehicle and leave it on their property? Is there anything that technically needs to be done to allow that to happen on a road that does not belong to the government? I want to make sure you are acting within the powers you can use on a local government’s road. It is only a technical question.
This is fairly minor. I need to give you the clauses because if you can answer these now I will not go to committee stage. Sections 66H and 66J – one is the moving of an immobilised vehicle and the other one is interference with immobilisation. I am not sure why they are not the same thing. If you move it you have interfered with it, so why is it not just one clause? You are still penalised 100 penalty units. Is it still an offence? When I was reading it, I thought there did not seem to be much difference between one and the other.
Mr Elferink: A syllogism.
Mr WOOD: I am glad you said that, minister. I must use that in Scrabble one day. I cannot spell it.
Mr Elferink: All kookaburras are birds but not all birds are kookaburras.
Mr WOOD: That was just a small matter. Minister, thank you for giving me the hardship guidelines, which I believe were important …
Ms Walker: He did not give them to me.
Mr WOOD: I told you I would loan them to you, member for Nhulunbuy.
It talks about people coming under Centrelink, etcetera. That is good because you are dealing with people who perhaps cannot afford it. But further down it said they have been assessed by the FRU as suffering hardship so a financial examination will be used to determine this – any defaulters who are listed with utility suppliers, such as electricity providers, as hardship clients. It also said defaulters listed as Indigenous and living in remote communities.
As much as I understand what you are getting at, I get a little concerned that the race of the person is relevant in this case because you are dealing with people who are relying on Centrelink. I would prefer that you just left it as those who are suffering hardship for whatever cause.
Mr Elferink: I am happy to amend that.
Mr WOOD: I believe that, to some extent, our social service system should be based not on what colour you are but what your circumstances are. It looked a bit funny saying, ‘the defaulters listed as Indigenous living in remote communities’. There might be a poor non-Indigenous bloke living in a remote community who misses out. It is covered by the Centrelink requirements and the other sections of the hardship guidelines.
I had a laugh when it said, ‘Deceased defaulters are excluded and their debts are to be written off’. Well, I am pleased to know that. I can see that as an extremely good part of the …
Mr Elferink: There are two things in life that are certain.
Mr WOOD: That is right. I can only presume you are not going to then chase up someone else for the deceased defaulter’s debts.
Mr Elferink: No.
Mr WOOD: That is all right. I thought that was worth checking.
Many of the comments made are important. We were given some alternatives. The Law Society mentioned other states have some more carrot approaches to this, rather than stick approaches. That was good.
It would also be good to let us know how effective this legislation has been after it has been operating for a while. My understanding is that this has been effective in Western Australia. Some figures were given to me which show that when this was introduced the amount of debt reduced substantially.
The key in this for me is whilst it is important that people pay their fines, it is a two-way street. People have a responsibility to pay their fines and I do not have any sympathy for people who deliberately avoid paying them. Obviously on the other side of the equation there are some people who are in circumstances where they cannot pay the fines and might not have even known they had been fined. The balance is to ensure people in hardship for whatever circumstances – those circumstances obviously are part of the hardship guidelines – are treated fairly as well. That does not mean the government should be excessively lenient on people who are deliberately avoiding paying fines.
I am interested to know how long it would take before you put someone in gaol and if you think you would get to that stage.
Mr Elferink: Yes.
Mr WOOD: If you got to that stage, would they definitely be sentenced to a job, so they could pay their fine off by working from gaol?
Mr Elferink: It depends on their classification.
Mr WOOD: Okay. Hopefully their classification is fairly open if it is only parking fines over the last six years.
Mr Elferink: I hope so too.
Mr WOOD: That is right. I just thought I would raise a few of those points.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the proof will be in the pudding. If this works, we will see a reduction in the debt. If it does not, then we will probably be asking questions as to why.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister and the department the minister represents for providing the information about this bill.
That information was provided to the opposition spokesperson who did the research and the work around that. Our opposition spokesperson in this case, the member for Nhulunbuy, then translated that bill and important information to the Labor Caucus. The Labor Caucus then debated that bill and formed a position. That position then was communicated to the opposition Whip who then communicated with the block of Independents in the House. Then it was brought to the House to debate.
This process represents a lot of work and should be taken on board by the government as the machinations of minority government, which stand in stark contrast to the way the CLP government has been governing the Northern Territory in the past. It is a good and thorough process. Many people are active.
The Labor opposition has decided not to support this bill. I am quite surprised about the uncharacteristic clumsiness of the bill. It is uncharacteristic of the Attorney-General, one of the hardest-working members on the government side, to be presenting legislation that is clumsy. It will be trialled in a limited urban area and has major issues associated with it that have been raised by the members for Nhulunbuy, Goyder and Nelson and now me, as I will add to the debate.
When the member for Port Darwin was in opposition and I had the privilege of being a minister, I studied the job very closely and thoroughly, including the opposition members. The member for Port Darwin at the time was a very aggressive performer, trained in law. I learnt a lot about legislative instruments and the importance of the position of a member of parliament making laws. That is why I am quite surprised the member for Port Darwin is trying to guide passage of very clumsy legislation through this House that is full of holes and generating more questions than it answers.
The intention is honourable; there is no doubt about that. It is the recovery of significant fines and having offenders pay their dues. Nobody is disputing that. The statistics alone represent quite a media headline and have been used, in this case, to try to generate support.
However, the procedure to recover those funds has to be fair and equitable. It has to represent the principles of natural justice and relate to the Territory and all Territorians. I do not see a trial in the greater Darwin area as being relevant with the reality of a very highly mobile Territory population that represents urban, regional and remote area constituents.
When the member for Nhulunbuy was briefing the Caucus there was very good discussion and debate. I remember when we were discussing the communication systems and strategies. Each member of the Labor opposition provided their advice about what would work, the issues in relation to their own electorates and personal anecdotes. I provided an anecdote of when I first stood for parliament.
I entered my first political campaign to be elected to the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory and funded a mail-out of 3000 letters to the electorate of Barkly at considerable cost. To my astonishment, 1900 were returned to sender. Just over 3000 were sent and 1900 came back. Whilst I value Australia Post and have conducted school business out of the mail bag for many years, I was quite astounded how inefficient that system which was to communicate with constituents in the Barkly.
I brought that to this debate as it represents one of the clumsy elements of this proposed legislation in communicating with fine defaulters through existing systems. The member for Nhulunbuy, as a good Labor opposition member, presented clear alternatives and talked about using technology and associated initiatives to communicate the message.
I take the member for Port Darwin to one very important point: incarceration rates of Indigenous people in the Northern Territory are above the national average per head of population. They are unacceptable. They are causing no end of grief, trauma and stress within our community, which leads to associated knock-on effects of offending behaviour and the continuous cycle of unacceptable recidivism and returning to prison.
We need to go to the point of how we can address this. That relates to the member for Nhulunbuy’s very strong point in this debate about legislation based on a purely punitive strategy to address what is essentially an honourable agenda.
When I relate this to the constituency I represent there are very vulnerable people. I agree with the member for Nelson; I define vulnerability around low socioeconomics. Low socioeconomics with poor educational standards lead to victims of the system so punitive approaches cast the net and immediately catch those vulnerable constituents. Our statistics in Northern Territory corrections represent that. We are being looked at nationally and internationally, and we need government to continue to explore new ways of doing business. The member for Nhulunbuy presented some interesting ways to tackle this problem.
The punitive approach starts with wheel clamping. A precursor to that is a name and shame. Then there is the physical attribute of going after a personal possession such as a motor vehicle and clamping that, whether it be in a public place or a private residence. Members have already spoken about the constraints around that type of legislative approach and punitive action.
In the Labor opposition’s debate, I reminded our members of Labor policy when we were faced with the scourge of drink-driving and were developing policy around that. When I was introducing legislation for implementation of alcohol ignition locks, I remember the member for Port Darwin, in opposition, aggressively attacked me about our policy position – fair enough – with, ‘We will take vehicles and crush them’. We had a very separate point of view. We were at complete opposite ends of the spectrum in policy and how we would deliver the outcome of reducing drink-drivers.
I was focused on Labor’s policy of alcohol ignition locks because I looked at it holistically. The vehicle was not just the personal possession of the drink-driver, it represented the livelihood of families and family groups, and in the constituencies I represent often extended family groups. It would not be a good outcome to take the vehicle and crush it because of the serious offending behaviour of a constituent who drinks to excess and drives a motor vehicle. It would create greater issues.
In our Labor Caucus debate, I drew a parallel with a tradesperson in the rural area, a hard-working Territorian who depends on a vehicle not only to get to work and back, but also to carry tools or for use as part as their business. For that person to be named and shamed and have the vehicle immobilised and go through the processes – I have repeatedly said recovery of fines that are payable to the state are honourable – could end up in serious consequences such as a loss of job or a shaming within the family, with the consequential results of domestic violence, breakdown in the family, separations, all of these consequential outcomes that relate to one agenda of punitive design. That is why we are not supporting this legislation and why we say it is a clumsy instrument which needs to be refined before it has passed through this House.
The element of hardship crosses many boundaries in the Northern Territory and needs to be accounted for. The member for Nhulunbuy has done research and talked to the Labor Caucus about initiatives in SMART Court operations. As a previous government member having the privilege of working with the department of Justice, I learnt a lot about that initiative. The member for Nhulunbuy has shown us other jurisdictions. When I think of the constituents I represent who are vulnerable, from a low socioeconomic base with low educational levels and are faced with the justice system and incur a fine, surely before they leave the courthouse is the point of intervention. Surely that is the point where we make the arrangements about how that fine will be paid and the offending behaviour repatriated so we set that offender on a course of success, not failure?
I will play a bit of politics in this debate, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I know you love that. It relates to the member for Greatorex in some respects, because in the last couple of Country Liberal Party appropriations we have seen over $1m gifted to golf clubs in Alice Springs and Katherine. I have nothing against the game of golf, but that is $1m. In the Barkly, $1m probably goes five times further than it does in Darwin; it is worth so much more there. If we have $1m in our pocket, let us say we reprioritise this agenda and look at a SMART Court operation that would set the offender on a course for success, which essentially could repatriate $58m to the government coffers.
Let us draw a line in the sand and say we will go down this new road as opposed to single-item, one-agenda, tough-on-crime, punitive legislation which will continue to overflow the prisons, name and shame family members and cause residual effects of unemployment and all those associated consequential and dysfunctional elements of our community.
The SMART Court idea can be looked at. I encourage the minister to take this legislation back and start that process. The $1m has already been appropriated to the golf clubs of Katherine and Alice Springs, God love them, but maybe there is another $1m in the coffers somewhere. Maybe the TIO fund is still rattling if it has not been expended already. Let us look across the board at a more creative, innovative justice space, as opposed to this continual punitive approach that fuels the one-line media headline, ‘Tough on crime’. There are alternatives and we, as an opposition, are providing those alternatives.
I do not see this legislation progressing past Darwin and Palmerston, so it seems to be rather chaotic to even trial it there when it will not apply to the Northern Territory holistically. It will not apply in regional and remote areas because it will be challenged every step of the way. A simple issue like non-payment of fines, which escalates into a name-and-shame campaign and the immobilisation of a vehicle will substantially increase the risk of further offending.
The member for Goyder touched on the rural area and some of the great characteristics of Territorians, which is something I celebrate. I am always fascinated with Territorians and the diversity we have in the Territory. In the back blocks of the Barkly and the remote country that I travel and represent, there are constituents who will challenge the system every step of the way. When the member for Goyder talked about entering a person’s property, I talked about clamping the Rottweiler, then the contractor clamping the vehicle.
It would be an amazing case study in the Barkly to see somebody going to a regional area or remote community and clamping vehicles because it would immediately lead to an escalation in further offending. That would lead to further judicial intervention which would relate to further fines, essentially, as it has created more problems than it solved and constituents would end up in gaol. Then we would have those residual effects that we know happen.
Minister, you have an opportunity to get back in the game. As I said, I am extremely surprised that you are backing this clumsy legislation. It is not characteristic of you. As the Attorney-General, I thought you would have so many more resources at your fingertips to go back to the drawing broad and to try to achieve a more stable pathway to reclaiming $58m in unpaid fines while bringing the community with you, not alienating it, especially the low socioeconomic element of our constituency.
It is good to debate in this House and it has been a very interesting day because the game has changed. I will qualify that statement again; it is not a game. The business of this parliament has changed. The day of those occasional warm moments when we hear pleas from the government for a collegial, bipartisan approach to governing the Northern Territory has arrived by default. This is an example of how we will need to be more collegial and work together.
The member for Blain made a flippant comment and interjected with, ‘Get a briefing’. The concept of getting a briefing now takes on a new level of meaning, in my opinion. Member for Blain, thank you for that interjection because it is a new level in this House when you have a minority government. I speak from experience. I had the privilege of being in a minority government for four years. We worked very hard to make it a success and it was a success. This is now seen more and more as a national experience. It looks like we are going to see more of this concept.
Opposition members do not support this legislation. It is great to hear the Independents debating this. I look forward to the minister’s reply. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Barkly. Once again demonstrating you are never afraid to count your chickens before they hatch. I am sure the Attorney-General will be very keen to respond to that.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I agree with the member for Barkly in one important way. Yes, the flavour of the room has changed; there is no doubt about it. But that also imposes upon members a responsibility. This is a good example of what that responsibility should be. Because there is essentially a power shift in this Chamber as a result of minority government, it means that if I want to get legislation through this House, I have to start negotiating with the Independents. I am happy to do that. I have signalled that for a long time. In fact, I have always made it a point to offer briefings. Rarely has a bill come before this House that has not already been widely consulted on, as this one has been.
The point is that now I am going to call on the Independents who want to raise the level of this place. The member for Nelson, in particular, is fine. Every time I ring him and try to tell him there is information coming his way, he always picks up the phone. There are other Independents who have not answered my calls. We have offered briefings, sent e-mails, etcetera. It is important. I call upon those Independents that if they want to enjoy their newfound muscle, then they should do so responsibly and carefully.
On a couple of occasions today we have seen the suspension of standing orders for what I consider reasons that do not require it, but there you go! It is what it is and everybody has their way. But now the responsibility is on individual members in this House to perform better than they ever have.
One of the things that became apparent today is that springing surprises and traps leads to confusing outcomes. Two motions were brought forward and both of them were amended on the floor because they needed to be. Do you know what my concern is? Because the amendments were done on the fly, whilst our intent was clear here today, they may not be sufficient to cover the full meaning of those amendments going forward. My advice to members is that if they want to change standing orders and those sorts of things, in the first instance make overtures to all members before bringing something into the House, for the sake of caution. Anyway, that is by the by; those are just some observations.
I listened very carefully to the Labor members opposite and I get it. I suspect this is more about testing the numbers on the piece of legislation than the legislation itself. The first indication we received on our side of the House that it would not be supported was by notification last night by the member for Nightcliff. I am grateful to her for her notification in a somewhat timely fashion. However, having made that observation, we will press on.
Regarding communication with the people who have outstanding fines, I put this into a more practical domain so people get what goes on. There is a class of people who just do not care. They turn up to their car and there is a little fine under their windscreen wiper. They pull out the fine, screw it up, throw it on the floor or into their car, whatever, and have no intention of paying it. The Fines Recovery Unit has a number of steps available to it, which include communication. I heard the members opposite saying, ‘You have to communicate’, but I am not quite sure what you can do beyond registered post and those sorts of things. There is a reason we make sure at a legislative level that registered post is considered service, because it is a vehicle of service. It is one of the many vehicles of service under the Service and Execution of Process Act, which is a legislative instrument that tells you how you deliver papers on other people. I do not think the Service and Execution of Process Act extends to electronic service for a number of reasons. People who receive these letters – and by and large they do receive the letters – screw up the letters and are indifferent to them as to the fines themselves.
A little history here. One of my former functions in the police force was with a section called Warrants and Inquiries. Our section was the only profit-making section in the police force. It was our job to drive around, particularly Darwin – where I was attached was not Darwin – with what were called blue sheets. Blue sheets were a computer printout of a warrant. We would knock on somebody’s door and say, ‘Hello? Are you Mr Jones?’, ‘Yes, I am Mr Jones.’ ‘Are you Mr Jones, date of birth, such and such?’, ‘Yes, I am Mr Jones, date of birth, such and such.’ ‘You have $1000 worth of outstanding fines, you are under arrest’. ‘But, but, but …’ ‘No, you are under arrest, you are with us.’
Those warrants were called warrants of commitment. There are several types of warrants: warrants of apprehension, warrants where summons were disobeyed, means warrants and, for the purpose of this one, a warrant of commitment. A warrant of commitment committed you to serve time and cut out your fines. The way that was done was you were placed into the custody of the police officer. That was day one. If you were arrested at 11 pm, you had already cut out your first day. Let us say you had a $300 fine; you cut out the fine at a rate of $100 a day. So you did all the second day and then part of the third day and that was considered your three days done and you were released from either the police cells or the prison if it was a longer warrant of commitment.
The former Labor government said locking all these people up was all a bit harsh so they created the Fines Recovery Unit. The process was structured around the expectation that you could recover fines with limited punitive action. You were encouraged to do things like seek community work orders and those things.
I, and government, still encourage people with outstanding fines to contact the Fines Recovery Unit and come to an arrangement. We understand you may not be able to pay off your fines; we get that. We will not throw you in gaol. If you are standing in front of us saying, ‘Yes, I want to sort it out’, then we will take you on good faith and sort it out. You could do a work program or whatever else. Fines and work programs are cut out at a different rate to warrants of commitment. The old warrant of commitment was not as high as we currently do through the work program. The community service enables you to cut out the fines more quickly than a warrant of commitment. However, eventually if you do not turn up to your work program the warrant of commitment is issued, so ultimately someone arrests you.
The problem with that process is the point of arrest had become so remote that those people who would not pay their fines as a matter of course – I should know, I collect a few along the way, but I am always anxious to pay them off quickly lest the newspaper find out as much as anything else. The fact is that I will pay off my fines, and most reasonable Territorians will pay off their fines for their miscreant behaviour.
For the class of people who do not want to do community service and are utterly indifferent to paying, etcetera, the option is ultimately arrest. This proposes a couple of things which arose from some announcements I made last year. Last year we started to identify some problems and to say we were going after people with large outstanding fines. There are 666 people with fines over $10 000. There were some people last year, when we started announcing we are going after them, who had many tens of thousands of dollars outstanding. There was one instance where somebody had nearly $0.5m of outstanding fines, but it turned out that was more in the nature of outstanding restitution.
The point is we still want people to come forward. We do not want to name and shame people or necessarily clamp their wheels. But we need some sanction, some response, for somebody who flatly refuses to pay their fines. By the time they have racked up $10 000 worth of fines and the subsequent increases because of the system that surrounds it, we can pretty safely assume they do not care. What bothers me is that many of the people on the list are what you and I would call senior public servants.
Many of these fines come from normal citizens who live in the northern suburbs of Darwin, Alice Springs or Palmerston. Yes, there are Aboriginal people with fines and we encourage them, like everybody else, to deal with them. But there is a class of people who do not care. As a consequence we decided to do something about it.
One of those things is the publication of the top fine defaulters on a website. We are doing that because we want to embarrass people. If you are that class of person who has a good job, etcetera, and has over $10 000 worth of fines, if you are not ashamed by your failure to conduct yourself properly we will place you into the public domain so people can see who you are, because it is your debt that you must pay to the community in which you live. The second component is the immobilisation of vehicles used by fine defaulters who continue to evade the Fines Recovery Unit.
It must be immensely more preferable to arrest a thing than a person. If you arrest a person and place them into custody that means you can go into their house. Under the old warrant of commitment we had the right to go into people’s homes, drag them out and take them down to the local ATM so they could scratch some money out of it or they would end up in the cells if they said they had no money.
We are not talking about going into people’s homes. In fact, this does not enable you to go into people’s homes or garages. We cannot rip open the person’s front or garage door, and we cannot go into their best mate’s front yard either unless we have their permission. We can at least go into your property in the same way that a bailiff can go into your property and immobilise the vehicle. So the car is under arrest, not a human being. That, in my opinion, is a preferable approach.
If the scale of sanctions is what the Labor Party is concerned about, the scale we are talking about is lower than the existing sanction of the old warrant of commitment, which still sits at the other end of the process.
The other thing is to extend the cessation of business orders to individuals in order to provide the Motor Vehicle Registrar with the power to refuse to perform any functions in relation to fine defaulters. This has been around for a long time. This was part of the original fine defaulting process. The fact is we want to extend the cessation of business orders to individuals in order to provide it to the Motor Vehicle Registry. The means we can say to people, ‘You have a duty to pay your fines, otherwise you will not get your licence’. That, in my opinion, is entirely proper.
I also pick up on what the member for Nelson said in relation to his concern about the hardship guidelines. The final dot point on the page is:
That is based on a presumption and it is a risk of stereotyping. I understand why the presumption is there. I tell the member for Nelson now that I am happy to remove that and say that the defaulter has some sort of financial hardship. Once again, if you are a defaulter with financial hardship, go and do community work. If you are in a remote community, so much the better. It is not like you cannot find a job to do in a remote community.
Those are some of the options and, as whispered in from the adviser’s box, there is also the time to pay arrangements, so we will give that one a plug as well.
To cut a long story short, this is not radical; it is a system by which we can recover fines from the people of the Northern Territory. The last time I fired a shot across people’s bows we recovered several hundred thousand dollars’ worth of outstanding fines simply by threatening people with sanctions. However, the point is a large slice of those fines are still not paid.
I thank one of the Independents for their support in relation to the matter, and I look forward to this operating in the Northern Territory.
I will finish by saying one important thing: I am concerned that the Labor Party is prepared to let fine defaulters go and make excuses for people to enable them to not have any responsibility for the fines they rack up. That concerns me because there seems to be a growing trend in this jurisdiction, especially when we talk about Aboriginal people, that we make excuses for them, that in some way or another they should enjoy some sort of benefit under the law on the basis of their Indigeneity. I, as the Attorney-General and as a good-minded Liberal, cannot countenance such a world view. All Territorians should be treated equally under the law, and for that reason I glower at the suggestion it should be otherwise.
Mr Deputy Speaker, having made those observations, I thank honourable members for their contributions.
The Assembly divided:
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice) (by leave): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, earlier this year this parliament passed legislation for the Remuneration Tribunal to be separated from the connection to politicians’ pay and become a truly independent tribunal.
Over the last several months the tribunal has been working with members of parliament and a range of stakeholders in identifying a new determination.
The determination has now been brought forward to the parliament. I table this determination. The determination is a matter for the parliament, not for government.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later date.
Leave granted.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I table the report of the Standing Orders Committee and the proposed standing orders.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to; paper printed.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the report be adopted.
The report I table today is a large document – a tome indeed – which contains two important annexures. Annexure A is the new standing orders, the subject of the sole recommendation of the report. Annexure B is a contextual document which allows all members of the Assembly to examine the policy discussion undertaken by the committee during the eighth to the eleventh meetings held during the Twelfth Assembly. I lay this report on the table.
The Clerk will distribute a hard copy of the new standing orders to all members and the entire report will be made immediately available electronically in your e-mail boxes. This reflects the Assembly’s stated intention of moving towards electronic tabling as technology improves and we get used to reading off devices. It also saves members from receiving a 500-page report in hard copy.
During the Twelfth Assembly the Standing Orders Committee has been busy working closely with the Clerk to review and overhaul the standing orders, which were last substantially reviewed in 1985.
On the tabling of the report on Thursday 6 June 1985, the Chair of the Standing Orders Committee, the then member for the Division of Flynn, Mr Ray Harahan, said the Clerk had provided a comprehensive and voluminous report for the committee’s consideration. Similarly, our Clerk and his predecessor have undertaken comprehensive analyses over the last three years and the results are in the final report that members are seeing today.
I emphasise that members are not seeing this material for the first time. There has been a round of consultation with all members which aimed to ensure a modern and efficient standing orders that not only comply with necessary law but the practical day-to-day requirements as members. Indeed this document I table today is in truth already redundant because we have amended it today.
I will now provide a brief summary of the processes which brought us where we are today. At the second meeting of the Standing Orders Committee for the Twelfth Assembly which was held on 29 November 2012, the committee agreed to consider options for proposed amendments to the standing orders. At the fourth meeting, which the committee held on 28 March 2013, the then secretary, the former Clerk, provided a status report on the review of the standing orders, advising that after the first draft a review of the standing orders had been undertaken and the committee had agreed that a report of progress would be provided at the following meeting.
At the fifth meeting of the committee held on 28 August 2013, the secretary, the present Clerk, briefed the committee on a paper prepared about the proposed options for reviewing the standing orders. The committee agreed to ongoing consideration of redrafts of the standing orders with progress reports at forthcoming meetings.
At the sixth meeting of the committee, held on 27 November 2013, the committee considered a paper prepared by the secretary on the review of the standing orders, which included a proposed rearrangement of the chapters, some proposed deletions and the first 50 proposed standing orders for consideration by the Standing Orders Committee. The committee accepted the proposal that this process was an opportunity to modernise the wording and clarifying the language used to make standing orders more user friendly.
The draft paper proposed that the standing orders be grouped differently so that a new Part 1 contains standing orders for everyday procedural guidance and Part 2 contains those standing orders relating to the first sittings of the Assembly after an election, officers of the Assembly and the committees. This was agreed to and is in the final draft.
The committee then determined to appoint an informal subcommittee to work closely with the secretary to consider reforms in detail. The subcommittee was comprised of the members for Daly and Fannie Bay, and the committee thanks them for their detailed work.
The committee convened on 24 February 2014 and again on 14 May 2014 to consider the proposed new structure and text in detail. The subcommittee, on both occasions, considered draft recommendations and endorsed the content of the consideration of the Standing Orders Committee at its seventh and eight meetings.
At the seventh meeting of the committee, held on 26 March 2014, the committee resolved to consider the proposed standing orders in detail and determined that those not discussed in detail that day would be allowed to stand for further consultation.
At the eighth meeting the committee, held on 27 August 2014, the committee noted that the secretary had produced a further draft proposed standing orders document and determined that the document would be circulated to all parliamentary members. The committee secretary would be tasked to brief parliamentary members at parliamentary party meetings. The Standing Orders Cubcommittee would then discuss feedback received by members, and the Standing Orders Committee would consider all draft proposed standing orders at its next meeting. The committee further determined to consolidate a number of sessional orders into standing orders.
At the ninth meeting of the committee, held on 25 February 2015, the secretary provided the committee with a copy of the new standing orders with substantial changes to the standing orders highlighted in red text to alert members of the changes. The secretary advised that briefings on the draft standing orders had been offered to all members, and by that date had been provided to the member for Arnhem and all opposition members.
The committee noted that the review of the standing orders includes rewritten text and some innovations and deletions, and an opportunity for more innovative processes such as streamlining or deleting the Committee of the Whole. The opposition members of the committee advised they would consider the proposed new standing orders again at their party Caucus meeting in March. The committee agreed that the secretary would prepare a further report with recommended changes to standing orders and the committee would consider the next meeting ahead of tabling the report to the Assembly.
At the tenth meeting of the committee, on 29 April 2015, the committee considered a draft proposal to replace the giving of notice with the presentation of a bill separate from the second reading and, after the discussion, resolved to retain the existing procedure for inclusion in the new draft standing orders. This is an example where the changes were considered but not progressed to further development.
The committee endorsed the proposed standing orders as circulated in the meeting subject to reverting to the existing notice provisions for the bill, and then determined to circulate the draft to members for further feedback to be considered at the meeting in June 2015.
At the eleventh meeting, held on 17 June 2015, the committee noted there had been no further submissions or feedback by members during the final consultation period, and the committee agreed that the proposed new standing orders be tabled in a report to the Assembly during the August sittings, which brings us here today.
The committee proposes reducing the number of standing orders from 306 to 255. To achieve this a number of deletions have been agreed by the committee. In addition to the deletions, a number of existing sessional orders are now included as standing orders after being in use over many Assemblies. Examples of significant changes include the reordering of chapters and the abolition of the Committee of the Whole to be replaced with consideration in detail.
This approach will permit flexibility for the Speaker or Deputy Speaker to convene this aspect of the debate with a free-flowing discussion on clauses of the bill where the Assembly feels it is warranted, which is what happens in practice anyhow. The Speaker or Deputy Speaker will usually preside in the Chair and may convene the sittings from the table between the Clerks. This practice is now common in other jurisdictions and removes some of the mysteries of the process for the viewing public. There is no need to remove the Mace or for reporting back.
Annexure B of this report contains noted standing orders which provide policy analysis of the change compared with the existing soon-to-be-replaced redundant standing order. That document provides the rationale for rescissions made by the committee which are recommended for adoption of the final Standing Orders Committee contained in Annexure A.
There is one recommendation which the Assembly is asked to adopt, and that is to agree to the new standing order at Annexure A of the report, and that they take effect from 1 December this year.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the committee and the officers of the Assembly for the work done on these standing orders, and I commend this report, as well as the standing orders therein contained, to the Assembly.
Debate adjourned.
TABLED PAPERS
Travel Reports for Members for Nelson, Brennan, Arnhem, Greatorex, Casuarina, Nhulunbuy, Johnston and Arafura
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table nine travel reports from the members for Nelson, Brennan, Arnhem, Greatorex, Casuarina, Nhulunbuy, Johnston and Arafura pursuant to Paragraph 4.12 of the Remuneration Tribunal Determination.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I also table a discussion paper on Assembly committee reform which Madam Speaker forwarded to all members on 20 August 2015.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mrs FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, Palmerston recently welcomed a new business into the community. Argos Car Wash is located on Coffey Street in the Wishart Business Precinct on Wishart Road, just outside Durack. Argos held their grand opening over the weekend of 11 and 12 July 2015.
My colleague, the member for Brennan, and I were fortunate enough to be asked to sponsor the barbecue for the grand opening of Argos Car Wash, all funds raised could go towards the very worthy charity, Autism NT. I am happy to report that over $1000 was raised thanks to the generosity of the community and everyone involved.
As part of their grand opening, Argos put special deals on all the washes they offer, which include cars, trucks, boats, dogs and even laundry. With a fully functioning laundrette on-site, Argos is sure to be a popular car wash for the constituents of Palmerston.
This great community event included a sausage sizzle, a jumping castle for the kids and games for young and old, with a tyre toss a highlight for many of the men.
The Classic Ford Club and the Classic Holden Car Club attended the opening, bringing with them many car enthusiasts and spectators. The proud owners of the classic cars were able to show off their much-loved vehicles for all to see.
Hot 100 was broadcasting live from the official opening on Saturday with promos, prizes and giveaways. Ms Cherie Vance, President and EO of Autism NT, was interviewed by Ben and Harry to spread the word on Autism Awareness. Autism NT is a not-for-profit organisation and is managed by a committee of parents, carers and professionals with an interest in autism.
I thank Argos Car Wash for putting on this great community event, and I wish them the best of luck with their business.
Somerville Community Services is celebrating its 50th year as a Northern Territory community service this year. Somerville is a local charity which employs 260 Territorians. It has held many functions and events to celebrate this milestone, and has well and truly kept the party going over the course of the year. I attended one of the more recent events, which was a pink themed high tea fundraiser. I thank the staff and volunteers who took the time to make the event as beautiful and enjoyable as it was.
At the high tea, Hon Austin Asche, Somerville’s long-term patron and supporter, paid homage to the work of the organisation, pointing out they have an open-door policy there, supporting anyone under any circumstance.
The recent launch of Somerville’s book, Crossing the Divide, at Parliament House was an extremely popular event. This book is dedicated to the memory of Margaret Somerville, whose example every day inspires the work of Somerville Community Services today. Her integrity, humility and commitment to improving the quality of people’s lives is being upheld to this day. As many Territorians sadly remember, Margaret passed away last year at 101 years of age. Up until that time she was a wonderful mentor to the organisation at every opportunity.
Vicki O’Halloran, the Chief Executive Officer of Somerville, said knowing their organisation is born out of a history that pays tribute to the strength and courage of such a great woman is fitting. For Vicki, to know Margaret was a privilege, and to be her friend was a great honour.
Somerville’s operations, in its 50th year, include disability services, youth and targeted family services, child and family counselling and support, financial services, homelessness programs, no-interest loans and emergency financial assistance. Somerville has a proud presence in Palmerston, with its wonderful facility in Gray being an integral part of our community. Last year we celebrated the opening of its Northern Territory government-funded extension, which has been welcomed warmly by the staff and clients. It is a truly wonderful facility and provides a range of family and financial counselling services.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I congratulate past and present staff of Somerville Community Services over the last 50 years for their contribution to the Northern Territory. We toast your success in the last 50 years, and your future importance and ongoing contribution.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Mr Deputy Speaker, this evening I place on the record the frustration being felt with the Territory and federal government after allowing the closure of three remote childcare centres this month, and their inability to take action to keep these centres open to provide important services to the children and drive local employment opportunities.
The evidence of the lifelong benefits of investing in early childhood development is unequivocal. The role that early childhood educators and quality childcare plays in helping in the critical development domains for a child is well documented. With this knowledge, the Australian government has invested around $4m in the communities of Atitjere, Yuelamu and Nyirripi, building new childcare centres which opened their doors about six months ago.
This is a wonderful investment for these communities. This is giving young children access to the benefit of early childcare educators and the activities that help in their personal development. It also gives working families access to childcare options in these remote locations. It also creates jobs for local people in childcare. We all know and agree that creating local jobs in remote communities is essential to their future.
Yet about 15 full-time and part-time jobs have been lost. The Central Desert Regional Council has made the hard decision to close these centres due to funding shortfalls from the Commonwealth. This has seen funding decreased from $162 000 to $128 000 for Atitjere, a decrease from $155 000 to $128 000 for Nyirripi and a decrease from $165 000 to $128 000 for Yuelamu.
It makes you wonder how the Commonwealth or Territory governments cannot find these funds so these childcare centres can run, especially when this small investment could help so many children in their early development and in preparation for their education in school. Children and families are missing out and passionate people wanting to work in childcare in these communities have also lost their chance.
Why should people in the bush miss out on quality childcare and early childhood development opportunities that families in urban areas have such easy access to? If we are to overcome the huge deficits in education we are seeing in remote communities, focusing on quality childcare and early childhood development is an important step. Yet this month these new childcare centres have had to close their doors due to the lack of operational funding.
The federal government failed to reach an agreement with the Central Desert Regional Council and watched these centres close. The Territory government has also watched this happen. We have heard very little from it on the work it is doing to keep the centres open. Given it is their political allies in power in Canberra and the Indigenous Affairs Minister, Nigel Scullion, is one of their own, you would think it would have good access to gain the ear of the minister to say this needs to be sorted out. Or you would think the Territory government might even do the work to find the funding, but nothing appears to have happened as yet.
The frustration about these closures was well articulated by the Central Desert Regional Council president, Adrian Dixon, in a media release from the council on 10 August 2015, which stated:
I have also been contacted by a passionate education advocate who has been speaking to those on the ground impacted by the closure of childcare centres. Their frustration is clear as they can see the benefit of the centres and what they can mean to their communities. This person said the community is upset about the closure. It is a very expensive new building and it had just hired staff, settled into routines and was providing great service. Now, at very short notice, it is to be closed for an indefinite period. It will deprive the young mums of a central gathering place with great facilities and it was a bridge for professional service providers to access those with family responsibilities in raising young kids.’
It is hard to believe that between the Abbott and the Giles governments they are unable to make these childcare centres work. They have turned their backs on these communities and now have brand new $4m childcare centres left empty and unused, when it would be a huge benefit to have them open and providing early childhood learning and care. Local jobs have also been lost. Most tragic of all, there are now children and families in these communities missing out on the opportunity to access childcare and the benefits of a stronger focus on early childhood development.
I have questions for the Giles government about what it is doing to help these communities and these centres. Where has the Giles government stood on this very issue and where has the advocacy been with regard to these centres? What discussions has the Giles government had with its federal counterpart, Senator Nigel Scullion? I am also interested in what the member for Stuart has been doing to fight for these centres, two of which are in her electorate. I would also like to know what work this government has been doing with the Central Desert Regional Council with regard to this issue.
Every child, no matter where they live in the Northern Territory, deserves to have a government that supports them and their future. Having access to quality childcare creates opportunities for children in their early development and is important. Families wanting opportunities to work in these communities are entitled to have access to childcare so they can get a job and know their children are getting safe quality care and education while they are at work.
These centres need to be reopened without delay. The government needs to fund these services sufficiently so qualified staff can be employed to mentor, support and train local staff. The parents, children and childcare workers living in these communities deserve nothing less.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this is a shameful situation and it is hard to believe this has been allowed to occur. I hope we are able to see this resolved as soon as possible for the benefit of the children and their families in Atitjere, Yuelamu and Nyirripi.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, these evening I briefly mention some of the wonderful young people in my electorate who are doing extraordinary things in their field of sports, martial arts and things of that nature. I know there are many young people who do good things everywhere but these young people need special attention because one of them went on an overseas trip.
First I acknowledge the achievements of Chelsea Mudge, whose family I know. Chelsea received a First Dan Black Belt in Tang Soo Do Karate. I do not know if many people are aware of how hard it is to achieve a black belt in any martial art, but it is extraordinarily hard. I did jujitsu for a long time when I was at school and university and managed to get about two levels below a black belt. It was incredibly hard and that was in one field of martial arts. This young girl, who is only 16 or 17, has reached this high level, which is extraordinary. She is extraordinary and a lovely young woman but she also has a wonderful, lovely family.
She and her sister Shannah also participate in horse and pony club activities for the Noonamah Horse and Pony Club. They do exceptionally well. They are good team players and participants and really embrace that kind of activity. Both these girls are also involved with the Duke of Edinburgh Awards. They have won silver and bronze awards this year and I know their parents and everyone involved with them are very proud of that. I congratulate Warren and Lyn on their girls; it is a pleasure to know your family. Chelsea keep doing that Tang Soo Do karate because we need young girls to mentor other young girls that this kind of sport can be done by women, and done well.
I also mention some exploits of some fellows in rugby union in the rural area, particularly the Swampdogs Rugby Union Football Club. We are getting towards the end of the year in rugby union, but not so long ago the Swampdogs had seven representatives in the NT Under 16 rugby union team. Brodie Morcom, Joseph Cameron, Perth Inthakaet, Matthew Maurice, Harry Berns, Darren Ea, and Josh Robinson all went to the Gold Coast in mid-July to compete in the competitions. Congratulations to them not only for being selected but also for playing and representing the Territory well, and of course representing the Swampdogs in the rural areas. Well done to those young fellows.
The other one was the NT Under 18 School Boys Rugby Union team where six Swampdogs players were selected to represent the Territory. They travelled by train to Bowral in New South Wales in late June and went on to the competition in July. The Swampdogs were proud to have six members in the squad with Jack Byrnes being Vice Captain, Rhys Morcom, Braydon Becker, Jacob Beissel, Jack Byrnes, Clancy Court and Jett Norris. Congratulations to those young fellows, too. The Swampdogs Rugby Union Football Club is a good club which is very family orientated. Like many clubs around the Territory it has an enormous number of young people in the junior teams of Under 5, Under 6, Under 7, Under 9 and so on.
Recently, it held its seniors’ night where all the clubs around the Top End came together and gave out awards and recognised achievements throughout the year. I extend my congratulations to Mitchell McLachlan from the Swampdogs who took out equal winner in the most tries scored for the year. Well done to Mitchell.
Congratulations to all of the club people because they have worked hard building their Freds Pass Reserve facility: Rebecca Johnston, Glen Byrnes, Craig and Alison Dixon, Paul Albano, Mal Le Lay and many more young people who come together to try to make that club a real success, which I believe they have done. It is very family orientated.
It is a good sport as we know. Everyone likes watching rugby union, but not so much when we do not win against the All Blacks. But that is another story which I will leave for another time.
I also mention the exploits of one Territory girl who went to Kentucky in America as part of the International Mounted Games Exchange in 2015. This competition was set up in 1957 in England by the Duke of Edinburgh, who wanted it for children who rode ordinary horses and ponies. There was nothing special about them; he just wanted to get them to enjoy the outdoors and horsemanship.
These games have been occurring around the world since 1957, particularly in the Commonwealth countries but also others. It was held in America this year in Kentucky. The Australian team went with six members of 16-year-olds plus their coach and some family members. Team Australia came first. They competed against teams from around the world and took out first, with second being Great Britain, third Canada and fourth the USA.
The Northern Territory member of the Australian team was Natasha Clayton. She travelled to New South Wales where they held training camps. Teams got together to get to know each other in a place called Londonderry, New South Wales, and then they went to America to compete in the competitions.
Given you have a person from the Northern Territory and people from Australia, they do not take horses. They go to America and have literally 15 minutes to half-an-hour before the competition to get to know the horse. It is a horse they have never seen, let alone ridden before they compete. Of course, they competed well.
The interschool and international mounted games are very interesting and funny things. It is fun; they do some weird things with ropes, sacks, poles, squashing balloons, bottle races and goodness knows what else. It is about testing the young rider’s skills, agility, horsemanship and ability to work in a team. Clearly, even though the six members from Australia did not know each other before the competition and the training camps, they came together well as a team and performed exceptionally well because they took out first in the world.
I am hoping when I get to meet Natasha again we can get some publicity for her. It is an extraordinary achievement that a young woman from the Northern Territory was not only selected for the national team, but went to America and won the international championships. Congratulations to Natasha and all her team members. Well done to her and her family, because I know they support her in her quest and sport, which is horse riding, pony dressage and things of that nature.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, well done to all the young people in the rural area. Keep playing; play fair, play hard and enjoy.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I speak of the retirement of a number of people from the Northern Territory public service whose work for the Northern Territory has been sufficiently noteworthy to earn them honourable mentions in this House.
This year Ms Susan Gayle Moran retired from the Department of Health after an impressive 43 years of service as a registered nurse. Ms Moran commenced her nursing career in the Northern Territory at Alice Springs Hospital where she worked as a ward nurse in maternity, paediatrics, outpatients and the emergency department. She then contributed 10 years of her considerable skills and experience to work in the clinic at the remote community of Lake Nash for two years.
On returning from the bush she continued in primary healthcare and focused on working with Aboriginal people in Alice Springs community healthcare. Since 1990 Ms Moran has worked in community health in the Katherine region, retiring as the Northern Territory-wide Manager of the School of Health Services.
Ms Moran’s significant contribution to the community and the nursing profession has been acknowledged through the following awards. In 2010 she was awarded the national Coral Floyd Family Planning Award for her long-term commitment and dedication to improving the sexual health of people across the Northern Territory. In 2011 she was awarded the Living Legend award for her sustained outstanding contribution to nursing in the Northern Territory. This award was known as the Administrator’s Medal for a Lifetime Achievement in Nursing and/or Midwifery.
Ms Moran’s farewell was held at the Katherine Sport and Social Recreation Club, with her colleagues and local community members celebrating her contribution to the health and wellbeing of Territorians.
Ms Melinda Griffiths retired as a dental therapist of Oral Health Services in the NT Department of Health at close of business on 26 June 2015 after more than 38 years of service. Melinda dedicated her working life to providing and improving oral health services to Northern Territory children.
Melinda began her dental therapist cadetship in Adelaide in 1973. Upon graduation in 1975 she moved to Tennant Creek to work for two years, before moving to Katherine for the next 27 years. Whilst living in Katherine Melinda raised her family and became involved in the community pursuing her loves of fishing and four-wheel driving.
Throughout her career Melinda played a key role in implementing various dental initiatives including setting up school tooth brushing programs in remote communities and the provision of mouthguards for school sporting teams. She was one of the pioneering dental therapists to initiate and develop delivery of dental services to children located in isolated communities. This extended from the Gulf of Carpentaria in the east to the Western Australian border and south to Daly Waters.
Her desire to ensure service provision to remote area patients remained a driving force during her years of employment with the Department of Health. As part of a two-person team, Melinda travelled via four-wheel drive troopie to over 16 remote communities throughout the Katherine region, transporting all necessary equipment and supplies to ensure the provision of clinical services in diverse and often challenging settings.
Later in her career Melinda implemented a health promotion activity with the Tata Family Centre in Karama aimed at reaching high-risk families. Melinda conducted oral health sessions and created a non-judgmental environment where families could chat about oral health concerns and find out information about services where available.
Since relocating to Darwin, Melinda has continued to work in the school dental clinics, including Karama, Manunda Terrace and Stuart Park, as well as the Top End remote communities of Milingimbi, Daly River, Pine Creek and Ramingining. Most recently Melinda had the pleasure of working in the purpose-built multi-chair paediatric dental clinic in Casuarina specifically designed as a welcoming child-friendly dental clinic.
Melinda has remained active in maintaining her professional knowledge and skills, and has also been a member of the Australian Dental Oral Health Therapists Association and professional officers union, now the CPSU, throughout her working life.
I thank Melinda for her dedication and the great service she has provided to the Territory over the years.
I am pleased to acknowledge Mr Alan Comish, a Katherine resident, on his retirement. Alan completed his mechanics trade on leaving school. After a short time working as a mechanic he began a career as a truck driver on the west coast of Australia. In 1970 he moved to Cairns. In 1972 Alan travelled to Katherine for a short holiday before travelling west in order to purchase a new truck. During his visit to Katherine he was offered two months’ work and decided to stay.
Alan commenced employment with the Northern Territory government in 1972 at the Department of Transport and Works. Six years later he moved to the Department of Health. In early 1978 Alan commenced employment as the hospital maintenance foreman at Katherine Hospital.
He has weathered many a change throughout his tenure, including the growth of health and safety standards in the workplace and rapid procedural changes in areas such as infection control, for example.
Alan has achieved a great deal in his life and career. Alan’s passion is cars and trucks, and he is a speedway enthusiast and avid supporter. I share Alan’s ongoing love affair with fossil fuels and the internal combustion engine.
Alan met his life partner in Katherine and together they purchased a home where they raised their daughter. He will retire after 44 years of service to the people of the Northern Territory, 38 of those spent in services of the Department of Health.
Alan will be sorely missed by his Katherine Hospital colleagues and friends. In retirement he plans to travel around Australia with his life partner. I wish Alan well with his planned travel and future endeavours. I commend and congratulate him to this House with his dedicated service over 44 years.
After 30 years of nursing service to the Northern Territory public service, Ms Estrella Munoz is retiring on 31 August 2015. Ms Munoz commenced work as a remote health nurse at Oenpelli on 30 March 1984. I must be getting old; I joined the public service in 1983. Since then she has held the position of remote area services primary healthcare manager in a number of other communities, nurse coordinator recruitment and education, nurse coordinator preventable diseases in Top End remote, coordinator preventable chronic disease educator and health development and continuous quality improvement facilitator in Central Australia.
Throughout her career, Ms Munoz has strived for professional excellence and completed postgraduate studies in midwifery, a Bachelor of Applied Science degree in Advanced Nursing Practice in Community Health Nursing with majors in nurse practitioner, a maternal and infant health master’s degree in public health and a postgraduate Diploma in Health Promotion.
Ms Munoz has had many career highlights and in summary has given much and taken little. Her contribution to remote health in the Northern Territory is truly significant, not only in its duration but in its depth and its breadth. She displayed a passion and tenacity in whichever role she took and significantly contributed to improvements in Aboriginal health in a very challenging work environment. Ms Munoz is well regarded by all her former colleagues across the Northern Territory and is renowned for her dedication and hard work.
Ms Vera McMahon, a long-time employee of the Department of Health, commenced long-service leave on 14 August 2015, with the intention of retiring from the Northern Territory government after more than 29 years of service. Ms McMahon started her career in 1986 as a domestic and kitchen hand in the Tennant Creek Hospital. Over the next 18 years she worked in various administrative roles, eventually working her way through the levels and acting manager of Barkly Health Services during this period.
Vera was also very busy raising her young family and studying. This culminated with Vera attaining her postgraduate certificate of the Public Sector Management Program.
Ms McMahon moved to Darwin in 2004 where she initially commenced work with Oral Health Services as a senior policy officer. Apart from a short term with Housing, she remained with Oral Health Services working with senior management roles including business manager and Director of the Oral Health Services.
Ms McMahon was instrumental in establishing key projects for oral health. The first was planning and implementation of the school dental clinic upgrades. In 2006 she managed a project to investigate options for oral health specific electronic client information management systems, which led to the implementation of the current system Titanium.
In 2008, as part of the Northern Territory’s response to the Australian government intervention, Ms McMahon was asked to work on Helping Hands, a hearing health project in Central Australia. This project offered her a unique opportunity to be involved in one of the most ambitious projects ever undertaken by the Department of Health. Those initial efforts have translated into an expanded hearing health program that exists today and continues to achieve improved hearing outcomes for Aboriginal clients in remote communities.
After some adventure holidays, including trekking the Kokoda Trail, Ms McMahon returned to oral health in 2012 to complete her employment as a senior project manager. During this time she has willingly shared her corporate knowledge by mentoring new managers, which is something she has done generously over the years.
Ms McMahon intends to enjoy some time travelling, starting with a cruise to Europe in October. I thank her for her dedication and the great service she has provided to the Territory over the years, and I wish her well for her retirement.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I will not get through the last one.
Ms MOSS (Casuarina): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I start by telling a story. About three years ago I had the opportunity to meet my partner’s father for the first time. Meeting parents is always a nerve-racking event for anyone in a relationship, but it was a time I treasure.
In the time we spent together, we reflected on the shared mannerisms between Gavin and his boys and the conversations we had were about plans for the future that Jake and I wanted to have together. We shared food, we hung out and we spent time being together as a family.
It was also an incredibly emotionally charged time because my partner at that point – then 25 – was faced with the reality that he was losing his father because Gavin was undergoing treatment for late-stage cancer. We wanted to spend as much time with him as we possibly could, and he with us.
Gavin was many things. He was a tradie, a father, and an all-round carer of all people. He was a collector of people. He was a man who, in his younger days, had been an incredible free-diver, who loved his cars – working on them and driving them – and loved his time in the ocean. He could have not been more proud of his children. We lost Gavin that December but we will never lose the time we spent with him.
Tonight I address some of the comments that have been made over the last week by the Minister for Health, which I believe have caused a great deal of anger and offence in the community. I do not believe they should go without comment in this House, particularly on a day when quality of debate is topical and we should be having conversations about respectful debate.
The comments were made in relation to terminally-ill seniors at a conference this week and were widely reported. I am sure others have been approached by their constituents eager to share their views on the minister’s ideas about cutting services for those who are terminally ill. I have as I was coming out of a shop in Casuarina yesterday. Somebody said about these comments, ‘Make sure you give them heaps please’.
The comments, made in Seniors Month no less, at best were a poor attempt at starting a health debate, and at worst were a flippant thought bubble lacking in judgment and compassion. Of greater concern is that these comments are not isolated incidents. They are part of a long line of government members saying outrageous things. At least this is something that remains consistent with this government.
There really is no wonder that the public’s trust in the CLP government’s ability to create good public policy continues to plummet. It was shocking to hear the Minister for Health last week say – and I quote from the ABC on 20 August.
Quite frankly, there is a lot that can be said about that quote. However, to me it sounds a lot like a guilt trip for people on their death bed. It sits horribly with many people because there are many Territory families who, like mine, have had family members who are terminally ill and loved nothing more than to spend as much time as possible with them before they passed away. These are people who made long-standing contributions to our community, I add.
The minister’s suggestion does not seem to be an attempt at a conversation about euthanasia but a thought process about an arbitrary decision to be made by government about when those services stop. The minister also said if he wanted to start a debate on health spending then that is what he has done. However, I suggest otherwise. If the minister legitimately wanted a respectful debate with Territorians about health priorities, I believe he knows better than to go about it this way. At a time when we continue to hear about extensive ministerial travel on which we are still await full details, when we have an exceptionally expensive alcohol treatment system that has not yet been independently evaluated, the minister’s thought bubble around investment into early childhood development is to cut the resources from the terminally ill first.
Yes, we want rational and evidence-based debate about health in the Northern Territory. That does not mean emotional intelligence should be completed vacated in this space. These are conversations about life and death.
The member for Brennan and the Chief Minister have distanced themselves from the comments and we are interested to hear about which colleagues were canvassed about this idea. What does the Minister for Senior Territorians have to say about these comments? COTA, the peak advocacy body in Darwin for senior Territorians has said if this is government policy, it is something they would have to make representations about. They represent the best interests of senior Territorians.
It must be mentioned that these comments came a week after others were made about deaths in custody. I quote from the NT News on 16 August:
On this side of the House we were shocked to see that splashed on the front page of the NT News. I do not know another jurisdiction in this country in which a government would be okay with one of their senior ministers making comments like these about deaths in custody. It is utterly appalling. These comments were from our Attorney-General, the minister for Children and Families, Justice, Mental Health and Disability Services, and Correctional Services, areas of social policy in which the minister makes daily decisions about vulnerable people in our community. The gutter comments were made about a situation involving the death of two Territorians, people with families, friends and loved ones.
We understand the minister is not perturbed by what others think of him and I respect that. However, the public dialogue he engages with on matters pertaining to people’s lives and the most vulnerable in our society shapes people’s views about the management of these portfolios.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I have raised these issues tonight because, quite frankly, I believe it is offensive to be lectured in this House every time we sit about respectful debate when so often government ministers see fit to shoot from the hip with bizarre ideas that continue to reveal their division.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I lecture the member for Port Darwin. The title of the lecture is ‘Respect your Elders’. I will start with a story as well, like my colleague the member for Casuarina.
As I am a grandfather I have made a very serious decision in my life to be around for as long as possible because I see myself as an important part of the growth, development and socialisation of my grandchildren, by supporting their parents in the rounding of good citizens, good human beings, successful people in our community and upmost, people with good health to enjoy life.
At this stage of the lecture it is probably important to reflect on CLP policy of the past. The member for Port Darwin has been around the blocks, as I have. The member for Port Darwin would acknowledge and recognise CLP policy over 27 years to not provide secondary education for students in the bush. Whether we like it or not, this impacted on Aboriginal children, representing 39% of the Territory population, with a majority of those living in regional remote areas.
Without a secondary education and the holistic package of education these kids became vulnerable in all kinds of aspects, including health. If you examine any statistics on Aboriginal health and wellbeing you can see severe deficits in life expectancy across our Aboriginal community in the Northern Territory. This relates, to a large degree, to a lack of education. I stress that the Labor government in 2001 set about immediately addressing that.
Running in parallel was the CLP policy of the time, over 27 years of government, not to provide renal dialysis for patients in regional and remote areas. The Health minister at the time was interviewed copious times and challenged on a national level, and was always very quick to respond that the CLP government would provide renal dialysis for patients who travelled to and lived in Alice Springs and Darwin.
The number of people who went without renal dialysis, passed to an early stage of end renal failure and consequently died was documented at the time and can still be reflected upon. This was a direct result of government policy. Once again, the Labor government, on taking power in the Northern Territory, reversed that policy and provided renal dialysis for patients in regional areas. These massive policy deficits had very resounding impacts on a generational level.
I remind the member for Port Darwin of the euthanasia debate. Being a person who chose to live in very remote areas and work with communities, it became very apparent that the euthanasia debate caused a lot of concern to the seniors in Aboriginal communities. It was a time where, as a teacher working with health professionals, we spent an inordinate amount of time trying to make people comfortable and aware their health could be enhanced if they engaged with the medical profession, including going to hospitals. The euthanasia debate reversed a lot of that hard work, with Aboriginal seniors not wanting to go to hospital and not wanting treatment because they feared that place – you went in the front door and did not come back out. That was a major learning curve for me as a Territorian. I will never forget that example.
Teachers and health professionals across regional and remote areas continued that education and awareness process because we knew enhanced health services would improve health outcomes. We need our seniors around. We need to show respect. I, as a member of this House and an elected community member, was totally shocked by the member for Port Darwin’s public comments.
The member for Port Darwin, a highly articulate and intelligent member of the Territory community, an elected member of parliament and a community leader, should reflect seriously on the use of a cheap genre of political rhetoric to capture a media headline. The member for Port Darwin can do so much better. The member for Port Darwin now has the opportunity to address those statements and inform the Territory community, as the Minister for Health and the Attorney-General, that those comments were wrong; they were cheap and nasty and impacted heavily on our community. That would be a courageous outcome; it would show leadership and humility.
I also reflect on the Tennant Creek Renal Dialysis Unit, which was built under a Labor government and doubled in capacity under that government, and now supports an incredible element of our community in dealing with end-stage renal failure and providing quality of life. I encourage the member for Port Darwin, the Minister for Health, to visit some our regional renal dialysis units and meet the patients, nurses and staff. Look at the bonds that have developed. The cross-cultural education, appreciation and awareness between health professionals and Aboriginal patients in these renal centres is incredible.
I could give recent examples from our Desert Harmony Festival in Tennant Creek, which had a focus on disability. The National Disability Insurance Scheme was a major sponsor and renal dialysis was a hot topic in that conversation and narrative. The quality of life achieved by these patients, many who are seniors, translates to better mentoring and guidance of younger families. Many of them are grandparents like me. They are still in our community, still guiding and nurturing and still important.
There is no such thing as a trade-off. I can remember the member for Port Darwin ridiculing me, turning it into a political joke when I used the term ‘economic rationalism’. In an academic context, economic rationalism is defined and can be related to a liberalist political agenda. Economic rationalism underpinned the member for Port Darwin’s poor comments which hurt many Territorians and have once again, like the euthanasia debate, put out a very unclear message of concern. That message will translate through different sectors of regional and remote communities. It will be misconstrued and misinterpreted. It will hurt and have an outcome that can be directly linked to a politician making a cheap comment in front of a fancy camera crew. The member for Port Darwin can, and needs to, do a lot better.
I conclude my remarks with a comment on the value of life. Respect your elders, minister – clear and concise. The value of life must be celebrated and acknowledged always, when a child is conceived, when a child is born, people living their life and the life of a senior. As my colleague, the member for Casuarina, has said, there is a very important value of life of patients suffering terminal illness. We have to value palliative care to ensure their end stage of life is the best it can be. We must celebrate, acknowledge and value human beings.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I was very fortunate to have my mother until the age of 21 when she passed away early. She was a triple certificate sister who nursed and taught people and guided me onto my further life in the Northern Territory, and I cannot thank her enough. I only wish she was around to write my speech for the member for Port Darwin because it would have been so much better than I have delivered tonight.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Barkly for the speech he just made, especially the last bit. I fully support what he said about life. It was excellent to hear what the member for Barkly has just said. I agree that we need to value human life.
I will talk about a number of subjects. I will give you an idea of what I think about seniors and how important it is to value them. Much will be said about what the member for Port Darwin said, but I would rather give my understanding of the importance of seniors. I read the COTA report recently which contains some very interesting ideas about the value of seniors and of people as they get older.
What I saw on the weekend was a valuable lesson for me. I was at the closing of the seniors’ fortnight – as it was — at Woodroffe Primary School. So was the Acting Deputy Speaker. They held a concert where the Senior Songsters performed. The Senior Songsters are not what you might call sprightly; they are of a good age. Do you know they go around to the aged care facilities and palliative care every week; it might be on a Wednesday. They provide their talents to bring pleasure and enjoyment to people who are not able to get around anymore and who may be in their last days on this Earth. There is no dollar value with that, but there is the important human value which you cannot measure in economic terms.
We have to be very careful in this debate that we do not forget that it is just as important as when you are making an economic analysis of people as they get older.
I was most impressed by what those people do. Even at the event at Woodroffe Primary School there was dancing and music which brought enjoyment to those older people. That in itself is important. Again, you cannot put a dollar value on it, but that is something that is just as important as a person’s economic value in this life. I needed to say that those people are important. I can say that because I am one of them, as the 65th year of my life kicked over earlier this year. At least I can speak to people, you might say, on equal terms. I raised that because I gather that is what some of the debate has been about today.
I have not had a chance to watch the news, but it seems a couple of things which concern me were quoted regarding planning in the rural area, which was raised in parliament today. There were some things that appeared to be said about the Holtze area that need some clarification. This article was sent to me – and I am happy to be corrected on it – which may be a quote from the news:
We have already had the debate about the so-called killing of the Palmerston hospital. That has been laid to rest. But the issue is about the suburban development.
The minister might not have said that I did not understand it, but he gave the impression that this area is not going to have 9500 dwellings. In fact, it is. That is in the statement from the Planning Commission’s draft report. This area of Holtze spreads down to Howard Springs Road. It is a very large area, so we are not talking just about the hospital precinct; we are talking about the peri-urban area that is on the Greater Darwin Regional Plan.
I have heard the argument from planners that we must have suburban development around the hospital. I do not know how we come to that conclusion. The whole of Palmerston is just across the road from where the Palmerston hospital will be. What difference would it make if the development of the land next to the hospital was rural and not suburban? Are you encouraging people to come closer to the hospital, hoping they will all be sick and that will help benefit the number of people going through the hospital?
It really is not the Palmerston and regional hospital, it is actually the Litchfield and regional hospital if you want to be accurate. Or, more accurately, it is the Holtze and regional hospital because it is not in Palmerston. It is there to serve both the Palmerston area and the rural area.
Having high-density housing in this area will make no difference to whether that hospital operates or not. There will obviously be a need for some urban development in the area, especially where accommodation is required. But there is no requirement to fill up this land with 1800 dwellings as the department of Lands and Planning said in its PowerPoint presentation when I attended its office some time ago.
The issue being discussed at the moment is that unfortunately the minister, in his great joy of reading a media release from the people on Wallaby Holtze Road, forgot they are only saying they are happy about what has happened now. They are hoping there will be consultation in relation to the next phase of this development. I supported what the Planning Commission did in changing the original plan, but I also said the residents are pleased they are being consulted, but consultation must continue. That is what the minister has forgotten.
There is a belief that this land will be chopped up. I do not know whether the Planning Commission or the minister thinks they have had a win. In fact, the only win you have had is that you have allowed the land to be developed as it was promised to be developed along Wallaby Holtze Road. You still have not communicated with the residents to find whether they want urban development in the area as proposed in this plan.
The other concern I have is that the Planning Commissioner was quoted as saying this is inevitable. I get the same feeling from the minister. When ministers, Planning Commissioners or whoever say things are inevitable, you ask, ‘So are you not going to consult?’ They are really saying, ‘Oh dear, how sad. Go away, it will happen; put up with it.’ That is the impression one gets.
It has been so difficult to get the Planning Commission to come to the table. Now it has it is starting to listen to what the community says. It has changed things, and I congratulate the Planning Commission for doing that. I am not saying the Planning Commission does not do a lot of work, but I am critical that it has not done enough and the right type of consultation on what will happen in the rural area.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I do not agree that you have to have suburban development around the hospital. You may have some, but the whole area does not have to be turned into suburban development. It was promised to be small rural blocks of 1 ha. That is what I would prefer, but the best thing to do is talk to the people and find out what they think.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, in the June sitting week I contributed to a debate about government overseas travel. During my contribution I made reference to members of the public and the Darwin business community who were invited participants as part of a delegation on a government-sponsored visit to Greece in late 2014.
In parliament and the wider community there has been a spotlight on transparency and accountability around ministerial government travel and the value it returns to Territory taxpayers.
Whilst I did not name the individuals in parliament, my comments were made known to them and they were, understandably, offended. It is not my intention to offend members of the public who have the Territory’s best interests at heart, and for that I am sincerely very sorry.
On Friday 18 June 2015, I phoned each of the three gentlemen involved – Mr Andy Bruyn, Mr John Anictomatis and Mr Michael Tennant – and offered a mea culpa and an apology for any offence I had caused them. I now place that apology on the public record on the floor of the House and reiterate, once again, how sorry I am to have caused offence.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
MESSAGE FROM ADMINISTRATOR
Message No 28 – Assent to Proposed Laws
Message No 28 – Assent to Proposed Laws
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received Message No 28 from His Honour the Administrator notifying assent to the bills passed at the June sittings. The message was dated 15 July 2015.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of two Year 5/6 classes from Berry Springs Primary School – you have come a long way – accompanied by Brianna Bibbs and Pip Norsworthy. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Postpone Amendments to the
Planning Scheme
Postpone Amendments to the
Planning Scheme
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended that would prevent me from immediately moving a motion in the following terms of debate and decision by the Assembly ahead of all other business today:
That the Assembly requires the government to postpone any consideration of amendments to the planning scheme in the urban/peri-urban highlighted areas of the Litchfield subregion of the Darwin Regional Land Use Plan until:
Standing orders must be suspended to immediately consider this motion because first, last Friday a series of planning schedule amendments were advertised in the NT News that thick – three of those documents. As well, there was a second information day at Humpty Doo Village Green on Saturday regarding the Noonamah Ridge proposal. Then, last week, the Holtze Area Plan was released. Then the Planning Commission, in response to the member for Goyder’s comments, said that urban development in Holtze was inevitable.
The only reason these proposals are going ahead is because the government and the Planning Commission have deemed it should happen. We need to discuss this matter urgently, as these developments have the potential to put over 70 000 people in the rural area and it will mean a large part of the rural area will become urbanised. If this goes ahead it will mean land that should be developed for rural development will become suburbs, and the opportunity for families to buy a rural block will fade. If this goes ahead it will mean Weddell will not happen for many years. If this goes ahead, we will have suburban sprawl into the rural area, not a well-designed and planned city such as Weddell should be.
If this is not raised now, what other opportunity will I have to ask how this development got to this stage in the first place, when so many people opposed urban and peri-urban development?
This debate is needed to show Territorians how, under this government, the planning system operates. This will show how the people who live in the rural area are not supported by the government. The government does not care about them; it only cares about big landowners, some whom donate to the CLP. The fallacy about consultation, more affordable housing and why the government says it is too expensive to proceed with Weddell will be shown in this debate. Rural people see the rural area being urbanised with the blessing of the Planning minister and the rest of the government, because they are in it too.
This is an opportunity to support sensible development in the rural area based on the vision the government promised before the election. This debate has to happen now before it is too late. This debate needs to come on now because the applications are in to develop land, which will probably go before the DCA before the next sittings of parliament. That is why I want to suspend standing orders; this is urgent.
Madam Speaker, I put the question.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I understand the member’s enthusiasm for the motion he has presented to the House. I also note that the member has oft said that this is a place of debate, yet we find him trying to put the question at the first opportunity, believing he will have the numbers in this House. He may well have those numbers, but the member has lectured us long and hard about the processes and probity of this House.
I remind you with all caution and respect, Madam Speaker, to be cautious about using your Speakership to overturn the normal processes of this House – we have seen that exercised in this place before – which places you in an invidious situation.
The processes he has described today mean that he will effectively want something passed through this House which will stop a process of government. He says it is urgent. I ask honourable members, is it so urgent that we need to suspend the standing orders of this place? He can give notice of a general business motion tomorrow at 2 pm this afternoon, so he can introduce the motion and debate it tomorrow evening. None of the processes he has described would move forward sufficiently to justify the suspension of standing orders in this place.
If this place is to be elevated in the way the member opposite has said it should be and be seen as a place of integrity, then surely the integrity of following the standard processes of this place should be foremost in the member’s mind – indeed all members’ minds. I ask all members to turn their minds to the time when they said that government uses its numbers horribly and pushes things through that they do not like. He now thinks to himself that if he has the capacity to maintain that position, the rules have changed and it suits them now.
I presume that part of the process of this place is not to entrap each other. You would think that would be the policy of this place. The member for Nelson has often railed against entrapment in this House. We had no indication of this motion being brought before the House today and that this would be introduced by the member for Nelson and, I presume, the people who support him.
This will become a place where you see reaction and response rather than considered outcomes, as a result of negotiating positions before we walk in here. The risk you embrace when you go down that path is that if we stuff up on the floor without talking to each other, naturally the consequence which flows is that the governance of the Northern Territory will become more difficult because we will get results from negotiating things on the floor instead of well in advance.
I acknowledged from the outset that when we went into minority government there would be challenges for government in this House. We accept that, and as a consequence I have contacted every Independent as well as opposition members on all bills and matters before the House. This was done in good time to offer briefings and conversations with those members with all courtesy and respect that should be afforded all members of parliament. It saddens me, however, that that will not be reflected by the members opposite.
We have to start thinking seriously about how we present ourselves to the public, as I have so often counselled in this House, because it is not about just this room, the stunts we can pull and the things we can do.
There is nothing in this motion that strikes me as being particularly urgent that qualifies this dramatic step of suspending standing orders so we can push this through. There is nothing in the time lines of those matters advertised in the public domain that says those things will be dealt with before this House can deal with a motion through the normal order of business.
Therefore, Madam Speaker, it does not qualify to be a matter that needs to be dealt with on urgency and requires the suspension of standing orders. However, I suspect what we see here today is a straightforward test of the numbers.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, if the majority of members of this House want to debate something then that is the way it should be. I have listened carefully to the words of the Leader of Government Business and he has not provided any points except that he has lost control of the floor of this House. On the three-year anniversary of the CLP government coming into office, Gerry Wood is taking control of parliament to talk about a rural planning issue, which is a consequence of minority government.
The Chief Minister, only yesterday, claimed it is business as usual. It is not. In your arrogance not only have you stopped listening to everyday Territorians, you have failed to heed the warnings of minority government.
Therefore, we are in a situation on the first sitting day of this parliament where an important issue cannot wait, for the reasons the member for Nelson has outlined. It cannot wait until GBD tomorrow night because we have a limited time frame within General Business Day, during which it is possible for the government to talk the clock down, which means we do not take a vote. The proposal of putting 70 000 people into our rural area, changing our city and the Top End forever, is a serious and important issue.
Madam Speaker, the opposition supports the motion to suspend standing orders.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the shadow minister for her support. I do not generally go back on what has happened in the past, but I remember a motion that was passed in this parliament asking for an inquiry into Foundation 51 to look at donations and whether they affected policy. That was passed by this parliament and overturned by what I call an arrogant government which promised it would go ahead with that.
The other factor in this is I have debated this uphill and downhill. I have brought this debate before this parliament and I have been rolled. The government knows about this type of debate. I do not have to tell them about it again. I have no shame in saying this is an opportunity for me and my fellow rural members to put to the government that it is not doing the right thing.
It is urgent, as I said, because these planning scheme amendments will go before the DCA in about a month’s time. This is my last opportunity to say to this parliament that your processes for development of the rural area have been thwarted with lack of real consultation …
Mr Tollner: Rubbish!
Mr WOOD: I will give you the rubbish in a minute; you will get it, skip bin and all.
It is essential that this parliament debates something that has the potential to put 70 000 people into the rural area. It is essential to say to the government that type of population growth should be in Weddell.
This debate will not be just about the problems we have; it will be saying that we need development, but development the right way. It will not be a discussion just about the processes; it will be putting forward a positive analysis of what is happening and hope that the government at least listens to what we are saying.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Postpone Amendments to the
Postpone Amendments to the
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly requires the government to postpone any consideration of amendments to the planning scheme in the urban/peri-urban highlighted areas of the Litchfield subregion of the Darwin Regional Land Use Plan until:
I am not talking about development in general in the greater Darwin area; I am specifying three areas: Noonamah Hughes, the Noonamah Ridge and the Holtze areas. They can still be developed today. This is not stopping development; they can be developed under the existing zones. The change will mean a major change to those areas so it is only specific to those areas.
This debate is about the fact there was no real consultation with the community. I believe the greater Darwin plan was predetermined by the government and the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission did not properly consult the community and there has been a perceived conflict of interest with the Planning Commissioner.
Let us talk about lack of real consultation. The first plan was brought out for comment in late December 2013 and was an A4 sheet. It basically showed people what the Planning Commission was thinking of, and that was it. Unfortunately it was another document that was issued just before Christmas, with people getting ready for the end of school and heading off for Christmas holidays. Thankfully the minister gave an extension a day before the original extension was to be closed. So as much as it was good to have, it did not help those who had to rush to put in a submission.
The document was an A4 sheet of paper printed on both sides. The Planning Commission held no meetings anywhere. Please note that the map had two changes from the existing Litchfield plan. There was a peri-urban and urban development in the Holtze/Howard Springs area which was meant to have 9500 dwellings, roughly for 36 000 people and there was the peri-urban development in the Hughes/Noonamah area.
I held four meetings to explain what was in the document and the existing plan, and compared them so people could be informed of what the changes meant. The meetings were held at Holtze, Howard Springs, Girraween and Humpty Doo.
The Planning Commission held no public meetings, nor did the department, even though the residents would have been forgiven for thinking the A4 sheet was just a discussion paper or been a smokescreen for what had already happened or decided by the government.
On the weekend before the Freds Pass Show, the then minister for Planning and the Chief Minister announced that Palmerston was the new growth area. We would have Palmerston North where the new hospital was to be built. They stood in front of the television cameras and held up a map and a picture which showed the whole area of Holtze and Howard Springs under suburban development. When I asked if I could get a copy, I was refused. I had to go the ABC to get a copy. Open and transparent government?
I then went to a briefing about land development in the rural area and was shown this map on their PowerPoint presentation. Again I spoke to the department and asked whether I could get a copy of the PowerPoint presentation. When I received the PowerPoint presentation, all of the suburban areas were greened out. You have to wonder what the point of consultation was if the government had decided and had made a public announcement that this would happen.
Let us look at the proposal: no consultation, 9500 dwellings and the plan was deliberately held back from the community. This was a classic example of a government making mockery of any possible consultative planning process.
Before the draft plan was to be released in response to comments from a public announcement, which advised people in Howard Springs and Holtze, one got the opinion they did not care about community consultation and there would be a Palmerston North. People complained and signed a petition. There were 1000 signatures on that petition opposing urbanisation of the rural area. When the Planning Commission advertised its draft proposal at the Royal Darwin Show there were no changes to the plan at all. In fact, the Planning Commission added a new peri-urban and urban development called Noonamah Ridge, and a couple of activity centres – that has to be one of the dopiest names I have ever seen. It is a town or it is a village activity centre. They wanted to turn the Howard Springs forestry land into an activity centre. These changes were shown in the second draft plan which was released in time for the Royal Darwin Show.
The Planning Commission said it would consult and employed Michels Warren Munday to develop a community consultation report. The consultation process involved face-to-face meetings and briefings, the Royal Darwin Show display, displays at shopping centres, public notices, media releases, fact sheets, a website, a survey and e-mails to those who made submissions previously. The online survey received 11 responses. There were no public meetings and no public workshops. The information days were the closest anyone got to having a meeting. These information days were three hours at Humpty Doo supermarket, three hours at the Howard Springs supermarket and five hours at the Coolalinga Markets for one day only. Where is the real community consultation?
I asked a developer not so long ago, ‘Why haven’t you had a public meeting to discuss your proposals?’ He just said, ‘Tomatoes’. Sometimes you have to face a few tomatoes in this world. If you do you will probably get much more support for what you are doing.
The company conducting the survey said it used the new IAAP method of engagement, which is the latest way of engaging with people. Whilst I understand that is probably very nice, I am not sure it is the way you deal with major planning issues which are complex and require much more work than just holding an information session. The IAAP is the International Association of Public Participation. Whilst that might sound good, I do not believe it is the way to consult on matters in the rural area.
Regarding the greater Darwin plan, obviously consultation failed or the Planning Commission ignored the findings, as the plan does not reflect the outcome of these consultations. In the end, the Planning Commission has shown it had doubts about consultation because the government has recently decided to conduct a survey where a South Australian company asked people – I do not know if it is just in the rural area – if they supported small blocks in the area. If you believe there was consultation why has the government spent money on a survey about small blocks after it has approved the greater Darwin plan? We have not been told about these surveys or who asked for them to be done, what the questions were, who wrote the questions, how much it cost, how many focus groups were there and whether it was true that people were not allowed to say what happened in the focus groups. There was a cash prize incentive to go to the meetings. What was the result of the meetings?
I can share with you the three surveys which were done, one in Holtze, one in Bees Creek and one at Acacia Hills. They, without any doubt, showed the majority of people wanted Weddell to be built and did not want small blocks, at least under 1 ha. Yet those surveys have been basically ignored.
I go back to Holtze. In the meantime a notice of intent fell of the back of a truck showing some people’s residences in the Holtze area were to become Service Commercial. In other words, residential blocks were to be rezoned to commercial. They could have had a container shed or a car wash next to them. Someone decided those residences would become Service Commercial. This was all done before the Planning Commission held any public meetings with people in Holtze. It happened by accident.
I held a couple of public meetings in Holtze. Finally the people in Holtze decided to organise themselves and brought the Planning Commission, kicking and screaming, to a public meeting. At least they had a partial win with that. The Service Commercial area has been scrapped and the road has been moved 150 m away from people’s houses. Why has it taken such an effort to get the Planning Commission or the department to talk to the people directly? I do not know.
The Planning Commission made some changes, but it showed how predetermined the decision was. When the member for Goyder raised the issue of suburban development near the hospital recently, the chairman said the urban development in the Holtze area was inevitable. I do not think anyone is saying there should not be suburban development next to the hospital, but the department has shown this area to have 1800 residential blocks. That is slightly different to a small development next to the hospital.
Discussion with the community about how they see the future of the rural area has been missing from this whole process, as well as discussion about the reasons behind our existing plans and other options which could be investigated, such as workshops so people have ownership of their plan. This has been a one-sided debate between the Planning Commission, the government and the handful of landowners with a predetermined outcome. The only involvement people will have with this development will include looking at the plans and turning up at a DCA meeting. They will get five or 10 minutes to put forward their point of view.
Why do I say the Planning Commission is flawed? I have asked here before whether you can have a Planning Commission without planners. This Planning Commission was set up without planners running the show. I believe it was a deliberate ploy by the government. Putting the present commissioner – who had strong political links with the government, something they did with other important positions of influence in our community – in control was the wrong way to go. That is not to say this person does not have qualifications and is not capable of being on the Planning Commission, but the government leaves itself open by putting people of their own ilk in positions which should be seen to be independent not only in this position, but in others.
A Planning Commission should have independent planners and take the lead role; no one should have any political affiliations. It should not only be independent, but be seen to be independent. The future structure of the NT Planning Commission needs to be debated in this House, but not today. A future Planning Commission would not be afraid to talk directly to people, conduct workshops, provide options and involve people in a mature discussion. It needs people who understand rural people, not just the rural developers. A future Planning Commission should not have the seat on the EPA and the chairperson of the EPA should not have a seat on the Planning Commission.
I believe the advertisements in the paper on Friday are the end result of a process that was predetermined. I remember trying to put forward a motion in parliament asking for an inquiry into Foundation 51 to see whether political donations affected decisions. That was knocked back. There is nothing wrong with developers donating to parties in the NT; that is perfectly legal in the Northern Territory. The question I have is about the government. Have those donations clouded your decision to approve all this urban and peri-urban development? Have you declared a possible conflict of interest if the CLP government received funds from a developer and made a decision in favour of the developer?
I am not the only one who reckons this process is suss. The member for Goyder and I recently received a letter from a rural resident. I will not include all the names, but you will get the gist of what this person was saying:
- I write to you with regard to the subdivision proposal on Lowther Road, the proposed rezoning of the Noonamah and Hughes districts and the effects of such proposals should they be approved. Unfortunately, I am unable to attend the reporting body hearing on Lowther Road proposal due to responsibilities which I am bound to attend on 10 July.
It is my belief that the amendments to the land use plan currently being sold to the public is fundamentally and economically flawed. It is astonishing any responsible urban planner would recommend this course of direction. The total cost of developing and ongoing costs of providing utilities and services to a number of suburbs in the rural area, as opposed to a well-planned development in Weddell or other site chosen for topographic suitability and room for expansion, will lead to an increase in the cost of living for many Territorians, and I am certain any responsible engineer, utilities provider or essential services provider would apply.
The current direction of greenfield development appears to be unfair to the majority of rural residents at a time when land is not in short supply but unreleased …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I do not mean to interrupt; I just want to see a copy of this motion as required by standing orders, if we have a copy to circulate.
Madam SPEAKER: The member for Nelson will provide a copy to members.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, I just amended that. What I read is not exactly what is here. I am adding the word ‘highlighted’. It is what I read out but it was not on that copy.
I read from that letter again:
- The current direction of greenfield development appears to be unfair to the majority of rural residents at a time when land is not in short supply but unreleased.
- People who have chosen to live in the rural area are not an elitist group. Most have sacrificed much to purchase a home in the faith that any responsible government would honour current zoning laws unless it is evident the positive effects to the community far outweigh the negative. It is my belief that at present developments in the rural area are being considered not for the benefit of current or future residents but in the interests of the opportunistic profiteering of a few.
The potential for land speculation within adjoining lots would artificially increase land prices, therefore driving the reality of home ownership in the rural area further from the grasp of the ordinary Territorians. This appears to be in contradiction with the goals of the NT Planning Commission.
The direction of the planning scheme changed drastically when, in January 2012, the Territory government introduced and appointed the NT Planning Commission. This new committee was formed to restore confidence of industry and community in the planning process (Northern Territory second reading speeches Planning Amendment Bill 2012). Then the minister claimed this bill recognises the Planning Commission will be established as an independent body and must perform its functions and exercise its powers independently and impartially in the public interest.
While Territorians have the right to expect our government to invest our revenue and futures in the appointment of experienced professionals in their field, there appears to be an extreme bias in these appointments between industry and community interests. I do not suggest that any party had intentionally acted with dishonesty, but as humans our drives and perceptions are influenced by personal relationships and professional intuition which may cause an error in judgment while acting independently and impartially in the public interest.
He went on to say:
- The appointed chairman is the founding partner of Earl James & Associates. There is also …
- … who is listed as a director of EJA who is also a committee member of the Urban Development Institute of Australia.
In 2010, EJA applied to the Development Consent Authority for rezoning and development of approximately 200 ha in Noonamah. The authority decided against the development for reasons I am sure remain unresolved by these current proposals. It is conceivable that the changing of zoning laws and boundaries may rekindle this client/consultant relationship directly and financially benefiting both parties despite the negative effects on the local community.
The writer of this letter went on to mention a number of other people who I will not mention here. He is concerned about a number of them being affiliated with the Urban Institute of Australia. The Urban Institute of Australia claims:
- We actively represent the interests of land and built form property developers in the Northern Territory.
The letter continues:
- The Territory is a small place and one would expect familiarities in any industry. These are just a few brought to my attention without much effort at short notice, while also trying to pay a mortgage and earn an honest living.
My concern is that most of the lives being affected by these decisions are not the lives of property developers and law makers. The perceived short-term benefits received by the few will be grossly disproportionate to the negative social, personal and ongoing financial costs for the majority of Territorians. There is a potential for those who represent interest driven by capitalising profit in a specific industry may inadvertently, though with good intentions, to be at odds with the interests of the wide community. I feel that through professional excitement and human error those involved in pushing this agenda have missed the mark and need to redefine the goals and directions of future development.
I am like most Territorians, not a …
… shit stirrer. I consider myself private and apolitical and am only driven to petition you both from a sense of desperation, urgency and disbelief with regard to this situation. I can only ask for your continued efforts encouraging all members of government from all factions to proceed with honour and integrity bestowed upon public office and in the public interest.
That letter says it all.
I raise the issue of conflict of interest. I am not saying that anyone has done anything unlawful. I have fought against the exemptions, for instance, to conflict of interest in the Planning Act, but the government persevered and that stayed in the act. I will be considering putting changes, as I said, to the act at a later date.
There is a conflict of interest that needs to be raised, one that highlights the problem within the government. Conflict of interest can be actual, perceived or potential. The Planning Commissioner was once a business partner in Earl James & Associates. The writer of the letter noted the same thing.
As the writer said, a plan was drawn up some years ago by Earl James & Associates for the Noonamah/Hughes region. I have a copy. This plan is nearly exactly the same as the plan used on the first Darwin Regional Land Use Plan, the draft land use plan, the final plan and the amended plan. Surely people would ask if there is a conflict of interest – at least a perceived conflict of interest – that should have been clearly identified when this part of the plan was approved?
Why is the plan the same? Why did it not change even though many people did not support urban/peri-urban development? Why is the plan in the Darwin Land Use Plan nearly the same as the plan drawn up by Earl James & Associates? It was an attempt for land near Noonamah to be rezoned to 0.4 ha blocks, which is not permitted in the rural area. That was done in 2010. Earl James then represented a client and in their submission said:
- Whilst there is considerable support to bring Litchfield into line with the rest of the Northern Territory and reduce the minimal allowable lot sizes in Zone RR – that is Rural Residential – to 4000 m2, the applicants believe that such a proposal should be initiated by government. Until that is done, each case should be considered on its merits.
It went on to talk about considerable support which was actually from the department. There has been a push for some time by Earl James & Associates to have blocks smaller than 1 ha in the rural area. The concept of peri-urban and urban destroys zoning that differentiates between urban and rural.
Conflict of interest does not mean anything is wrong. I am not saying anybody has done anything wrong. In my job I have to declare a conflict of interest even when there is no real conflict of interest. I have to say there could be a perceived conflict of interest.
In this case that should have been declared. Although, if there was a perceived conflict of interest, does this mean the development of this area should be re-evaluated? It should be and not just in this area, because there are other things that concern me.
If you read through these plans, you will see in the first plan there was no such place as Noonamah Ridge. No one could comment because they did not know it was there. All of a sudden it turned up in the draft plan. Noonamah Ridge is a real estate name, not a geographical name. The real name is Lloyd Creek but the independent Planning Commission decided to call it Noonamah Ridge in its draft plan. Why? It is meant to be independent. Surely it would call it Lloyd Creek. It is not on the side of any particular developer. Did the company speak to the Planning Commission? They are entitled to. What was the outcome of those discussions? How did this name appear on the draft plan?
If the Planning Commission had been looking at developing the area based on an independent assessment of the area – and it might have thought it was a good area for peri-urban – then surely it would have retained the name Lloyd Creek to show it was not influenced by the developers of Noonamah Ridge? I am interested to know what those discussions were and what was agreed to.
In summary, a Holtze urban/peri-urban plan has been approved by the Chief Minister and the minister for Planning, without consultation, which was announced in May 2013. Development of Holtze, regardless of what we say, is now regarded as inevitable. What faith can people have in consultation if someone says development in their area is inevitable? Where is the room for discussion? No one is Holtze is saying there should not be development; they all support the hospital. They do not support the rural area being turned into a Palmerston North suburb based on the whims of somebody in government. We are not short of land.
There is a peri-urban area at Noonamah Ridge, land that is Lloyd Creek. Does the government know of any face-to-face consultation with the residents on Redcliffe Road at Acacia? I attended a meeting at the Acacia Hills Volunteer Fire Brigade where about 50 people turned up. About 45 of those people said, ‘No we do not want that development to occur; we want it to stay as it is.’ It did not matter; it is in the plan now and we have already had the second stage discussions about what will be there.
The Hughes/Noonamah development, not permitted previously, is now announced as full steam ahead. There are no changes from the first plan. They have changed the name to East Weddell. It will still have 27 000 people in the rural area.
This debate is not against progress. People in the rural area are not against progress, but they want progress that reflects the values of the rural area. They want a rural area that is not just a real estate spin word that is used now such as, ‘We are going to develop a country-like subdivision’. People can see right through that and it is not rural.
It is hard for governments and Planning Commissions to understand – because they are all based in Darwin – that rural living is a legitimate option to urban living. People want a government to stick to its promises; they want Weddell built.
I will raise this document again and again. This is a CLP document from before the last election. This map does not show Noonamah/Hughes, Holtze or Noonamah Ridge as urban. It shows it as rural and it shows Weddell. This is what you went to – you can call it your discussion paper.
I stood in this parliament and supported this against the Labor version because I thought it was a better document. All of a sudden I am regarded as the enemy for opposing what is before us today. I am not against Hughes/Noonamah being developed. The member for Goyder and I issued a document in opposition to the Labor Party’s plans, and we showed Hughes and Noonamah being developed.
The size of what has been put forward is the problem. Hughes could have a nice little district centre around the airstrip; I do not have a problem with that. However, pick up the documents and you will find we are talking about over 4800 m2 blocks. We are talking about a huge number of people in that area. The population of Humpty Doo, which is a district centre, would be lucky to be 500. It probably would not even be that because the government has not developed the residential area.
Noonamah should be developed. It is perfect; it is opposite Weddell. But it needs to be developed properly with a plan that will make sense and is about the urban area not being the majority of development in that area but subservient – it serves the rural area. The development I have seen in the plans is urban development. Yes, there are some blocks that are rural, but the majority of people living in this area will be living on urban blocks.
I make it clear because the minister will probably have a ping at me about the development. I supported and have always supported this plan. The member for Goyder and I have tried to be positive and proactive in saying we are not against development. But all of a sudden, we have foisted on us 70 000 people – that is the potential – at least. That is not rural development; that is city development. That is the responsibility of the government, not the responsibility of a few people who own large blocks of land. When you talk about that kind of population, you need a government with a vision, which employs people who can draw up a visionary plan for a city.
The next city is Weddell, as you promised. What is happening? You are saying, ‘Too hard, cannot build Weddell’. Your excuse is, ‘We will get someone else to do it; we will get private industry to build it.’ There is nothing wrong with private industry building Weddell. You set up the plan; they build the infrastructure.
The government says it does not have enough money. I say you have enough money. You even have a Growing the North development loan. Building Weddell is about growing the north. People will need a place to live. You will get your money back by selling parcels of land to developers. That is how Palmerston was developed; it has been done before.
Do you mean to say that, in the end, it will make a difference whether a person buys a block of land in the private Weddell development, a Noonamah or Hughes development or an Intrapac development? They all need to provide infrastructure. When it comes to the crunch, the cost of that land will be reflected in how much the infrastructure cost to build.
I do not see the role of developers being to design a city; that is the role of the government. I see the role of developers as filling in the city. We have this upside down and back to front.
As I said, this is not anti-development. We need appropriate development. I do not mention myself much because I own a five-acre block. But I want to give families an opportunity to buy a proper rural block, not a country-style block, so they can raise a family with some fresh air, blue sky, trees, a chook or two and a kangaroo. That is what this is all about. It is not saying we should not develop or those landowners should not be entitled to develop. The extent to which this development is going far exceeds what people expect in the rural area.
I am happy to support development in Hughes, Noonamah and appropriate places like Lloyd Creek. Those plans have been out for many years and the member for Goyder and I have put our names on documents, which shows we support them.
This development is over the top. This development was predetermined because no matter how many people signed petitions and had concerns, nothing changed. We need to go back to square one. We need to talk to the people and give them options. We need to conduct an independent assessment of these areas, and we might come up with a good compromise.
Madam Speaker, I am not putting forward this proposal as a negative, but so these parcels of land can be developed. They should be developed in consultation with the community. If you do that you will have a far better chance of getting support for development in the rural area. I will leave you with one thing: the priority is that if you want more urban development, develop Weddell. That way we would not have this problem.
__________________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I understand that Paul and Henry Archibald are in the gallery, the member for Nightcliff’s family. Welcome to Parliament House.
Members: Hear, hear!
__________________________
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker – bring your family to work day.
I listened to the points the member for Nelson raised; this is a very serious issue. The government is changing the face of our Top End, city and rural area forever. People are passionate about where they live and they choose a lifestyle. Do they want to live in the inner city, in a unit with no palm fronds and lots of restaurants nearby? Do they want to live in the suburbs with a bit of space? Or do they want to live in the rural area, where they can live a comfortable lifestyle in our tropical north with some space around them?
The member for Nelson made a number of points and gave details about how the government has ignored the community and not listened to its concerns. That is a broader issues of why it is now a minority government. This is a serious issue to many people, yet the government’s original planning notices over Christmas – no meetings just simply making a mockery of the process – showed it is not listening to Territorians. It has shown that it did not listen to my community about a planning proposal in the harbour off the coast of Nightcliff. The member for Fong Lim’s speech on that issue, talking about Peter Pan and Tinker Bell for more than 20 minutes, highlighted how arrogant they are.
Today as an opposition we support this motion moved by the member for Nelson on the very important matter of amendments to the planning scheme in the Litchfield area. The member for Nelson and other members of this House have had long-standing interests in service delivery, appropriate planning and maintaining amenity and lifestyles for the residents of the Litchfield area. We also know that the member for Goyder is a long-term advocate of appropriate planning and amenity for those residents who choose to live in the rural area. That is the point this government does not understand: people want different lifestyle choices. Some people want to live in the rural area and do not want to see the rural area carved up.
Today’s motion is about good policy planning and the practice in the Litchfield subregion of the Darwin Regional Land Use Plan. Planning is a science. It is mapped out, worked out and consulted; it is not ad hoc. When ad hoc planning decisions are made they generally cause upset for the community, including traffic flow and access issues. Inappropriate development or ad hoc planning decisions cause issues around education, services and health services.
Central to the motion is a compelling focus on consultation with the community and local residents about important planning issues that impact on their daily lives. The government members, on this issue, have had their heads in the sand. They do not live rural; they do not care. That is not why governments are there. Governments are there for all community members, whether they are in Alice Springs, remote parts of the Territory or the Top End.
Like people elsewhere in the Territory, the residents of the Litchfield region simply want to be properly consulted on changes planned for their community and how they will impact on dwelling density, lifestyle, amenity and environmental and heritage values. Is that too much to ask? I do not think it is, but we have a government which refuses to listen, either through arrogance, incompetence or design. Only when pressured by residents and their local members will the government occasionally listen to community concerns about planning. It is only if its numbers are in doubt that it seems to listen.
There are concrete examples in the Litchfield area that illustrate this point. Not long ago, without consulting the residents of Holtze, the government issued a notice of intent concerning land use in the area. The notice said the establishment of urban areas to the north of the Stuart Highway will represent a significant alteration of land use away from predominantly rural lifestyle community living, and existing residents may voluntarily move away from the area.
This is an example of the CLP making planning matter decisions, County Liberal style, ‘Like it or lump it. If you do not like the way we are moving, changing the rural area, move on.’ Territorians are speaking; they are not going to move on or give in to your arrogance.
You can understand why local residents and their parliamentary representatives, who are representing the community that elected them, are furious about the lack of consultation on land use proposals that would impact greatly on their lifestyle and amenity of locality.
The ABC has reported:
- Residents who held a public meeting in the rural area on Thursday night blasted the proposal, saying they have not been consulted at all about any plans to build small suburban blocks in the area, where they currently have homes on 20 acre blocks.
…
All of the residents at the meeting protested about the impact suburban housing would have on noise, traffic and their rural lifestyles.
Following concerted community action by concerned residents, supported by the members for Nelson and Goyder, some recent concessions have been made concerning the government’s plans for Holtze, but the plan needs more work because the future remains uncertain. Their concerted efforts have led to some significant changes to the government’s plans, but the future is still not certain.
The government’s handling of recent planning issues in Holtze illustrates why the member for Nelson has proposed that a new Litchfield Land Use Objectives Plan is agreed to by this Assembly before any further amendments to the planning scheme for the area are considered. A reccurring consideration is the CLP’s refusal to listen to legitimate community concerns about planning decisions. I come back to the point. Unless you need the support, you do not want to listen; you keep rushing things out over Christmas holidays without talking to people. You need to stop and listen.
The controversial subdivision proposal on Lowther Road, Bees Creek, has also brought planning issues in the Litchfield area into sharp focus, a reoccurring theme. Again the strong voices of local residents and members were essential to reversing the decision of the Planning minister, who does not want listen. As reported by the NT News, local resident, Christine Osborne, summed up the community’s frustration. She said:
- Residents in the area do not support the rezoning of this part block ...
- ‘Once something like this is approved, applications will be made for blocks that are less than the standard for the area and before you know it, the rural area will be a dog’s breakfast.
- ‘People move out to the rural area to live on five, 10 or 20 acre blocks for more space, so they can make more noise and maybe have quad bikes or run horses …
Something you would understand, Madam Speaker:
- ‘If a neighbour is allowed to divide their 20 acre block into one acre lots, then all of a sudden you’ve got 20 people next to you.’
She went on to say that:
… residents weren’t against development of the rural area, but that the proposal ‘wasn’t sensible planning’ …
The member for Goyder expressed her frustration at the Planning minister’s reluctance to listen to concerns, as the NT News quoted:
- Peter Chandler listened to the people and said no and now, this urban-based minister Tollner says it is okay to destroy the rural area ...
‘Listen up Mr Tollner, we collectively say no to you, get back on your bike and ridden (sic) off somewhere where you can’t be found.’
…
‘It’s terrible,’ said one area resident who lives near the proposed development.
‘It will now allow for development of small, high density lots in the rural area. There’s a lot of people very upset out here.’
How can you not hear? This is our local media. These are members of your own side expressing their frustration at the arrogance of your government making decisions without consulting. The refusal of the Planning minister to listen has placed your government in a minority government, yet the Chief Minister continues to support him. The members who have left your side gave you opportunities. The member for Goyder has spoken out against these planning decisions. She FOI’d. It was quite clear she was upset, yet in your arrogance you refused to listen. You keep backing the Planning minister; you keep supporting him. You have no one to blame but yourself for being in this situation.
Finally, under the simple pressures of numbers the Minister for Lands and Planning has made a concession. Honourable members would have seen reports in yesterday’s NT News about a deferral of a decision on the Lowther Road development. It is instructive and worth quoting because it is directly relevant to the motion we are debating and brings the Litchfield’s Sub-Regional Land Use Plan into clear focus:
- A decision on the controversial subdivision on Lowther Road in Bees Creek has been deferred by Planning Minister Dave Tollner.
More than 200 people rallied against the application in June, concerned their lifestyle was under threat, worried about the lack of infrastructure to support such development, and allowing the land to be rezoned would be setting a dangerous precedent.
Mr Tollner made the decision to defer ‘pending Planning Commission recommendations on the Litchfield Sub-Regional Plan’ this week and was in line with recommendations of the Development Consent Authority regarding Lowther Road.
The application involves the subdivision and development of a 25 ha property. The proposal also includes 14 larger blocks of 1 ha on the east and west sides of the development to act as a buffer … with 36 blocks of 4000 m in the middle.
We are talking about changing the face of the rural area.
This government cannot be trusted on planning issues and that is why it is important for this House to support the motion moved by the member for Nelson today. We are talking specifically about the Litchfield and rural area, but we could outline decisions across the Territory this government has taken and not listened to Territorians about. That was obvious in my electorate where we had hundreds of people rally about a 98 ha lease being issued for part of our harbour. Yet to date I still have not received an explanation from the government.
Today we are focused on the Litchfield area. The opposition will be offering its support to this motion as this government cannot be trusted. Given the history of complacency, I can appreciate the member for Goyder’s lack of confidence in the Planning Commissioner. Other broader issues have also eroded public confidence in the government’s handling of planning issues and its constant failure to listen to legitimate community concerns.
I have previously expressed my concerns in this parliament about the Planning minister’s incredible admission of how he runs his office. When the minister conceded that he ran his office on a cash-for-access basis he should never have been reappointed to the Cabinet, let alone to the sensitive Lands and Planning portfolio. This minister said on the public record, ‘Your donation will open my door’. How can the minister make an admission like that yet be reappointed to the Cabinet and be placed in the position of Planning minister?
Planning shapes our cities and our Territory. It is one of the most sensitive portfolios. Decisions made by this Assembly will impact the Territory forever. Once we carve up the rural area it is gone; there is no going back. We must preserve the rural area. We need to see a beautiful tropical north – cities surrounded by rural living. People want to come to the Territory and raise their families here living a Territory lifestyle, and living in the rural area is as about as close as you get.
I am constantly approached by members of the public who are dismayed and disappointed about the minister’s cash for access admission. I have been doorknocking, enjoying this beautiful Dry Season weather, as I am sure many members of this parliament have, and the number one issue raised with me is planning and the incompetence of minister Tollner. Under these circumstances, how can you expect to have credibility with the public for decisions you make as Planning minister? The Chief Minister is in charge of Cabinet and has appointed the person to that position, so he cannot turn a blind eye to this.
Confidence in the Territory’s planning system has been eroded by political appointments to key statutory positions, something the member for Nelson touched on. These appointments have caused grave community concern about transparency and accountability in the planning process. While not exhaustive, these appointments include: the former CLP Chief Minister Denis Burke as Chair of the Development Consent Authority; a former federal Liberal member and President of the CLP, Gary Nairn, as Chairman of the Planning Commission; and Graeme Lewis, Director of Foundation 51, former CLP Treasurer and member of the CLP Management Committee appointed by the Chief Minister as Chair of the Land Development Corporation.
This government does not seem to understand that these political appointments erode confidence in our planning system. The appointment of those people, whilst they may have experience, is eroding public confidence. We have reached the point where residents of the Litchfield area, their parliamentary representatives and members of this House no longer have confidence in the government’s management of planning issues in the Litchfield subregion of the Darwin Regional Land Use Plan.
The member for Nelson’s motion is to elevate proper consultation to its rightful place in the planning process, with a proper and independent consultation process completed for that part of the Darwin Regional Land Use Plan which affects the Litchfield Sub-Regional Land Use Plan. A draft report would be put out for public comment. A final report, which includes a new Litchfield Land Objective Plan, is to be considered by the Legislative Assembly.
I am sure the members for Nelson and Goyder, based on their local knowledge, will have some informative views on how the consultations can be designed to maximise the public exposure to the draft plan and obtain the genuine views of residents, not just the six or 11 who completed online surveys.
The opposition has listened to the legitimate concerns of rural residents, and the members of the rural area are fighting to preserve a lifestyle. This government is not doing the right thing. We have debated planning issues before and it has not listened. It therefore finds itself being a minority government. The Chief Minister yesterday said it is business as usual. Maybe what has occurred in this Assembly this morning will make him realise it is not business as usual. Territory elected representatives will stand up for their communities, as we are seeing today.
Madam Speaker, the Labor opposition supports this motion.
Mr TOLLNER (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, the government will not support this motion. The government has gone to every effort to consult …
Ms Fyles: Oh, rubbish!
Mr TOLLNER: I did not even get that out. Jumping the gun.
The government has gone to every effort to consult about development in the rural area.
I am aware, Madam Speaker, that it was you, as the shadow Lands and Planning spokesperson, who was involved in the creation of the document the member for Nelson is happy to show around, which is the Planning for Greater Darwin document we took to the last election. It is fair to say that on winning the last election the government had a mandate to implement this Planning for Greater Darwin plan we introduced. We did not; we entered into further consultation.
There have been some minor changes in relation to Planning for Greater Darwin that we took to the election. Most notably was the weir on Elizabeth River which, in my view, would have allowed for faster development of the township of Weddell ...
Mr Wood: That is why you are not building it.
Mr TOLLNER: Member for Nelson, it adds some complications to the development of Weddell.
However, we have listened to people who had concerns about damming the Elizabeth River and creating a lake for the township of Weddell, and have taken it off the table.
I am somewhat bemused by the member for Nelson’s motion today because no member of this parliament has been consulted about development in the rural area more than the member for Nelson. More often than not, the member for Nelson has been listened to and his views taken into account.
This is not about a lack of consultation; it is about the fact we are consulting. We are getting out there and the Planning Commission is working hard to consult with residents, especially in the rural community. For the record, the Planning Commission has been providing information on the show circuit and at pretty much any large public gathering. Those on the commission have gone out of their way to encourage forums for discussion on planning matters. They have also gone out of their way to hold pub and town hall meetings with residents in the rural area, and to doorknock and talk directly to residents. Much of that approved funding for the Planning Commission has been used not just to do that but to employ expert market research organisations to telephone and ask people’s views on how they see the rural area developing, as well as creating focus groups and sitting down with people to talk to them. We have gone to extraordinary lengths to consult with people and understand their mood for development. The work of Gary Nairn and the Planning Commission has been first class in relation to that and welcomed by people in the rural area.
Today, before anybody knew this debate was coming on, the Holtze Residents Group issued a media release. This is what it has to say:
- The Holtze Residents Group, the neighbouring rural community of the Palmerston hospital development, welcome the latest plans for Holtze as released by the NT Planning Commission last week.
- Whilst this is only one stage in the process the residents were appreciative of not only the consultation of the NT Planning Commission but also how this translated into real outcomes. These proposed amendments have recognised the importance of maintaining the residents’ investments in their rural Territory lifestyle.
The proposed amendments also acknowledge the general support of these residents to the nearby Palmerston hospital with properly considered planning principles.
The residents are hopeful that the Planning minister, Hon David Tollner, will be supporting the amended plan and are looking forward to seeing the next stage, particularly as it relates to environmental issues and also proposed sizes of residential lots.
The media release the Holtze Residents Group issued this morning ...
Mr Wood: Borrowed from mine; they asked me.
Mr TOLLNER: Oh, okay. I note the member for Nelson likes to interject. The member for Nelson says they copied his media release. If they copied his media release why is he here now banging on saying the Planning Commission does not consult? What matters to the member for Nelson is that everybody else’s views are somewhat discounted and his views become the most important and the only ones to be taken into account.
Mr Wood: Rubbish!
Mr TOLLNER: That is the reality, member for Nelson.
Mr Wood: You would not know what reality was if you tripped over it.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, you have the call.
Mr TOLLNER: I know, Madam Speaker. People re interjecting; I am just waiting for that to cease.
As I said, the Planning Commission has been going out of its way to consult and make sure residents of the rural area are brought in on discussions at every stage. Why is this? I announced when I came into this job in February this year that I was interested in getting public input at the very front of the process. Rather than public input happening solely with the Development Consent Authority, which was the only time, under the previous regimes, where public input was required at the development consent stage, my view is that the public should be involved much earlier in the process at the planning stage. What is the point of people turning up to a Development Consent Authority hearing if the planning has already taken place to allow certain types of development?
My view and the view of this government, which we took to the election, was that the public involvement had to be brought forward to the planning stage. In that regard, I have made sure the Planning Commission is properly resourced. As Treasurer, I have taken this role on to make sure they have the funds and resources required to carry out deep and detailed consultation to make sure the whole community’s view is taken into account.
What offends the member for Nelson so much is he does not really want the whole community view taken into account. He is only interested in those noisy splinter elements of the community. He does not want the Planning Commission to be doing market research, telephone polling, running focus groups or to be doorknocking. He wants his view and his view only to be the view that works.
It is contradictory in some regard, Madam Speaker, because a few weeks ago, as you and the members for Nelson and Daly know, I wrote to the three members who represent the rural area and asked them to join a committee called the Rural Development Review Committee. Currently the way things operate, when rezoning or subdivision applications are made, they generally go to the Development Consent Authority. As I said, under the new regime, I want all of those applications to go directly to the Planning Commission so it can run the public consultation. But as the regime stands, the Development Consent Authority still has a large role to play in the approval of subdivisions and rezonings. In the future, the Planning Commission will take over responsibility for that.
My view, given the amount of noise coming particularly from the member for Nelson and in some regard the member for Goyder, it was appropriate that we put a decision maker or another process in place to take on board their view specifically. So I asked them to review decisions that come from the Development Consent Authority or the Planning Commission prior to those decisions coming to the minister for approval or rejection. That is because I am very keen to understand exactly the views of our elected members in the rural area in relation to development.
I was somewhat stunned when that proposal was rejected because these people seem to have big voices when it comes to how the rural area is developed but they refuse to take an active role in the decision-making process. To me, that is somewhat shameful and hypocritical. To sit there and say, ‘Oh, no, we are opposed to this, we are opposed to that’, but not take on the offer to do something about it, I find is hypocritical and shameful. I am disappointed that the members for Nelson, Goyder and Daly have not taken up that offer. I understand that the member for Daly is a very busy minister. He has many responsibilities. He also sits on a couple of committees of this parliament, and for him to find the time to engage in another process would have been extraordinarily difficult. He assured me that if the other members from the rural area were to agree to it, he would have played ball and involved himself in that committee.
I find it highly disappointing that within less than a week of rejecting my offer to take an active role in the approval or rejection of proposals for development in the rural area, we now have to come to this. We know what this is about. This is nothing to do with planning in the rural area. Yes, it is a great drum for the member for Nelson to jump up and bang on about, but this is about testing the minority government. That is what this is about, right from the word go, with no notice to the government or anybody that this motion was coming on. Everybody is scrambling around to try to find out exactly what the member for Nelson is banging on about.
The member for Nelson comes out with some of the most bizarre criticisms such as, ‘There are no town planners on the Planning Commission’. Well, member for Nelson, the Planning Commission is a board. All of the town planners and people involved in the planning agency at the Department of Lands and Planning have been moved into the Planning Commission – 19 people. Town planners, experts in their field, are working for the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission is a representative organisation which has an independent chairperson who has a long history in the Northern Territory and detailed knowledge of how planning is achieved. In fact, he is credited all over Australia as a man who is worth his salt in this area. In additional to that, we have people who represent heritage values. The Heritage Council, the Environmental Protection Authority and the Development Consent Authority have automatic seats on that board. The member for Nelson seems to want to wash away all those people who represent those interests and simply put town planners on it. Member for Nelson, you have been briefed often enough and you understand the system. Why do you make these outrageous statements? It is wrong.
The government has a plan which it took to the election. We have a mandate to do this. We are consulting. We are going out of our way to consult. We are trying to talk to people all over the Territory on all issues in relation to development and planning, but it seems the opposition and selected Independents have no interest except in undermining that process and our efforts to consult with people. They do not encourage people to get on board to have their say.
What the member for Nelson and others want is big rowdy town hall meetings where we all throw rotten tomatoes and flour at the Planning Commission. That seems to be their only interest. Fundamentally, how was the member for Nelson elected? He was elected by sitting on the sidelines and throwing rocks at people. It is as simple as that.
We are putting in place good planning principles. We have town planners employed by the Planning Commission. All those planners have been moved from the Department of Lands and Planning and report directly to the Planning Commission to make sure we have proper detailed plans all the community can be satisfied with. Do we get support for that process? Do we get support for moving the public consultation from the development consent stage to the planning stage? No. All we get is misinformation, lies and dodginess. It is straight out wrong.
This is a very serious matter. I warn members opposite that if they think this is the golden elixir to somehow prove the government is in a shambles, what they will prove is the parliament is in a shambles and you are in complete disarray. If this motion is approved it effectively kills the Palmerston Regional Hospital.
Whilst the Holtze area plan – I will table this – is out for public consultation there is an expectation it will be signed off in the near future. Government is ahead of the game in this regard because we have already appointed a contractor to look after the overall development of that site – Lend Lease – and that was advertised in the paper the other day. They expect to start work on 1 October. If you support this motion you kill Palmerston Regional Hospital and open the government to paying compensation to the developer ...
Members interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: Make no mistake, if this motion is supported you kill Palmerston Regional Hospital and put the whole process back on the drawing board to find a new location and new ways to get this done. It is amazingly hypocritical that the opposition can say they want to see the development of Palmerston Regional Hospital but will support this motion.
Member for Nelson, I recommend that when you make your final remarks you consider making an amendment to this motion which gives some certainty to the development of Palmerston Regional Hospital and that there will be support for the Holtze Area Plan. Without that certainty and support you put in jeopardy the future of Palmerston Regional Hospital. Be it on your heads if this motion gets up!
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I welcome the CLP to minority government, led by the front row wanting to abuse the Independents. What a great start to the new parliament of the Northern Territory: a minority government. Get used to it, folks, because it means your arrogance and self-centred approach to governing the Northern Territory must change. We on this side of the Chamber have asked for, pleaded for and recommended it, but now we demand it. It looks very clear this morning, ladies and gentlemen, that you do not like it. Continue with your abusive tactics and threatening of members on this side, including the new block of Independents, because it will get you nowhere. This motion will be a good test.
Let us wind back the clock to the new CLP government and the Chief Minister elected by the people of the Northern Territory, Hon Terry Mills. Let us go to the legislation to create the Planning Commission and the lengthy committee stage investigation which I facilitated. The opposition had many questions about a new government and its approach to planning in the Northern Territory. On that occasion Mr Mills took great offence at being questioned, but I noticed a number of interesting dynamics. He did not have much support that night. Most members were out of the Chamber and there was very little moral support from the benches behind the Chief Minister. It was obvious that there was a far more sinister agenda. That unfolded soon after.
Mr Mills jammed through the Planning Commission that night. In that debate I highlighted that Labor’s Greater Darwin Regional Land Use Plan was the most comprehensive planning document the Territory had seen. It would remain in the department of Lands and Planning with a name change of Lands, Planning and the Environment. Many good operators were terminated and very serious intellectual capital had left the department. The plan and all the work that was done would remain accessible to this government. However, there would be one significant difference: this government’s agenda was to focus on private land with private developers – their flat earth policy that they would release land more quickly and make it cheaper and more accessible by handing it to the private sector.
The new emerging story within the Northern Territory was Foundation 51. That clouded the environment and started the trust deficit of the CLP within the Territory community. There were many links that were sequential and logical when I looked at it from step to step. As we and the member for Nelson have said in this debate, there are no problems with private development. As a previous minister for Lands and Planning, I engaged with the private sector and across the community in the Northern Territory, where we saw the first land release programs for decades in Katherine, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs and Palmerston east. That included dialogue with the private development sector.
They lacked the understanding of delivering modern urbanism and the principles around social amenity. They were still stuck in the past with rhetoric about cutting up small blocks. They were in a group within the community that needed education and awareness around better urban planning principles. They were very engaging and interested in the opportunity for learning. They were also interested in the previous Labor government’s policies regarding land release, and we had serious dialogue at the table.
As the member for Nelson said in the motion, nobody is blocking private developers but it is about delivering the new principles of modern urbanism.
This government has focused on a very select group. We have seen the member for Fong Lim start to tie in some of the other conspiracies that have been generated within the Territory community: the jobs for mates, the favours and the cash for access. All the agendas put out by the CLP through the parliament into the media have the Territory community talking.
Last night, at the Leader of the Opposition’s forum held in a room at the Hilton Hotel, which was full, one of the dominant agendas about lack of trust in the current CLP government related to planning. I talked to a number of those participants in the car park afterwards and said it became very clear to me in that forum that one of the major concerns about trust and the integrity of the CLP government relates to planning. It was agreed upon by a number of participants.
I said I would raise those sentiments every opportunity I have in Caucus to remind the members on this side that this is where the government has gone wrong. They are being judged by the people, not by the opposition. The agenda of citizens who turned up to a town hall forum to discuss trust and integrity was the CLP’s lack of understanding and serious lack of integrity in its planning principles and processes.
This has come to a head today in a very important debate. The element of the motion is a stop-the-bus element, in my language. It is a warning. It is offering an alternative marker for this government: stop the bus before it is too late, before there are serious planning mistakes made that will affect the future of the Northern Territory.
I like to refer to Darwin as the capital of northern Australia. If you look at the greater Darwin area it reflects the capital city of northern Australia, with a potential to attract businesses into the Northern Territory, as opposed to northwest Western Australia and Queensland. So we better get it right. Looking at public opinion of the behaviour of the current government falling into a minority, with a revolving door of Cabinet ministers, constant infighting and scandal after scandal, it has become very obvious that it does not really hold for good management of Territory natural resources, including land and planning.
The opposition always likes to present an alternative. We are not about knock, knock, knock, as was the CLP in opposition. There seems to be a similar story emerging within the Liberal camp: great oppositions, lousy governments. I wonder how the CLP will be judged further down the track, let us say in August 2016?
The alternative is the city of Weddell. As I said, the greater Darwin Land Use Plan has been used extensively by the incoming government, and I have acknowledged those elements. The city of Weddell was scrapped and ridiculed, and the alternative presented by government was development of the Howard Peninsula where there was no infrastructure. I constantly argued that when a Labor government policy put roads, water and power into the Middle Arm development to support industry and there was the potential of a planned city – the Enquiry by Design process that walked Territorians step by step through the design process of the Territory’s newest city – then it made good sense in good policy and planning to deliver good outcomes. The CLP scrapped that, which was its first big mistake. It emerged that you had to go back to the rural area because that is where the private developers were that you wanted to engage with. I will leave that story open for the Territory to make its own decisions as to why the Howard Peninsula, with no supporting infrastructure, was your alternative.
What emerged – and the member for Fong Lim has just talked about it – was the Palmerston hospital. I challenged the Health minister and offsided him when I said we would both claim to give birth to rising sewer mains in the Northern Territory because the Palmerston hospital reflected a major fudge. You dropped the ball ...
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Mr McCARTHY: It was not the current Health minister’s issue, but being a major player in Cabinet I am quite surprised the Palmerston hospital became such a dysfunctional issue. The member for Port Darwin would have been one of the big hitters to try to keep that Cabinet on track. We know all the stories that have emerged from that.
The Palmerston hospital was completely botched by the incoming government. The time frames were missed. The federal government pulled out support and left the CLP government floundering with no Palmerston hospital. Their other move to change the site from serviced land in a health precinct to a greenfield site was another nave effort to smokescreen the issue from Territorians. We then saw a combination of existing plans such as an intersection upgrade, the rising sewer main and the water main. This was an attempt to fuse a land release project delivered by the private sector to support the hospital story.
It became very murky and muddy. The member for Fong Lim, the current Minister for Lands and Planning, has now threatened the opposition and Independents with the demise of the Palmerston hospital. After three years of dysfunction, poor decision-making, poor planning and complete fudging the CLP has the hide to say today that it will be on our heads. What a joke! What a glass-jaw response and a dismal, pathetic approach to minority government.
Listen to that very carefully because that is the new game, ladies and gentlemen. One can expect we will see more of a non-partisan approach, shall we say? We have had some very good examples of non-partisan CLP policy. That is where they have come into this House and completely blown a motion on Foundation 51, scrambled back for the numbers and returned to this House to ridicule and put down the member for Nelson, showing their true colours.
I have great admiration for the member for Nelson, but I advise him from time to time to look at the beast he is dealing with and not be so all-forgiving. I know where that comes from. I value and appreciate that.
In the debate the member for Nelson said this is urgent. This is a very urgent because if this is not corrected, if we do not stop the bus and engage the public and plan for a very defined area in the rural area, then decisions by this dysfunctional government could affect the development of the Northern Territory – the capital of northern Australia. Get it wrong and we will suffer for decades. So this is urgent and important.
This is minority government and you will be held to account. I attended a forum in Darwin last night and there are far greater forces at play which represent the public, who will hold you to account. Some of the crowd’s serious concerns last night were about planning, integrity, trust and accountability, with the focus on planning. Numerous people had their own stories but generally, across the group, there was real concern about the way planning has been carried out.
I support this motion. I stand with the Labor opposition on this side of the House. I encourage the Independents to stand. The game has changed considerably, but it is probably remiss of me to use the word ‘game’. The business of this House has changed considerably for the true welfare of the people of the Northern Territory. We now have the opportunity to deliver for the people of the Northern Territory. They will exercise that power; you watch it. This is just the start of the accountability drive.
Labor’s Greater Darwin Land Use Strategy also included the rural villages plan. Two members who were very active in that were the members for Goyder and Nelson. They brought people from the rural area with them. They drafted their own plan and, in the collaborative sense, we worked together to deliver for those people.
I attended public forums in the rural area on a number of occasions, not only regarding delivery of the new correctional services precinct, but also about Labor’s rural villages plan and the rational, sensible intensification strategy that would deliver modern urbanism in the rural area but retain those aspects of amenity, social amenity and environmental outcomes – those lungs of the developing greater Darwin area that need to be preserved.
As I mentioned in this debate, it also brought the private sector to the table and commenced their learning journey about the principles of modern urbanism. I felt we were heading in the right direction together; we had momentum. It was not fast or furious by any stretch of the imagination, because good planning needs good engagement. If you take the public with you then you will achieve the best outcomes. I once again draw members’ attention to the Enquiry by Design process.
Madam Speaker, I encourage the member for Fong Lim to revisit those documents and the information held within the Department of Lands, Planning and the Environment, get them on the table with the Planning Commission and revisit the principles that were taking the public along this pathway. This motion, which I urge all members to support, will stop the bus and achieve a back-to-reality sense and vision for the Northern Territory if it gets up today.
__________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of participants in the Adult Migrant English Program accompanied by Marian Fletcher. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your time here today.
Members: Hear, hear!
__________________
Mr ELFERINK (Health): Madam Speaker, I pick up on the comments that the member for Barkly supports the motion as it currently exists. The motion, as it currently exists, will stop Palmerston Regional Hospital.
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: If you support this motion in its current shape, Palmerston Regional Hospital is under direct threat. This is the reason I said be careful with entrapment and those things.
I have had some discussion with the member for Nelson in the background and understand he will move a motion the government will welcome. However, the motion as it currently stands before this House will have the effect of stopping Palmerston Regional Hospital. Think about it.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I listened to the minister for Planning and am confused. He said I throw rocks. I will show you this piece of paper. I spent a considerable amount of time – which you were part of, Madam Speaker – on what were called the Noonamah/Hughes development plans proposed by Wood and Purick. It was not throwing rocks; it was putting forward some positive suggestions.
I say to the people who might be affected by this motion today that I am not against development of their areas, but I am passionate that people in the region have not been fully consulted. This might not have to wait as long as next year. If something can happen in the meantime and the public can be consulted, so be it.
This is a major change, not just at Lowther Road. By the way, I remind the minister that he postponed a development in the rural area, which is no more than I am asking for today. He claims he did that because there needs to be public consultation about the Litchfield Sub-Regional Land Use Plan, formerly known as the Litchfield Land Use Objectives. I am doing no more than the minister is doing to a developer in the rural area. I do not see this as being anti-development. I want development to go ahead, but I want it to be rational.
I remember the workshops for Weddell. There are some lessons we can learn from Weddell. We got planners from interstate who had ideas about how Weddell should be developed, with or without the dam. We have an opportunity to do that here. If you are talking about land areas bigger than Palmerston, you would expect there would be some in-depth discussions, workshops and options that would involve the experts, local government and the residents of the area and the region. I cannot say that has happened.
I have a document here called the Community Consultation Report, the result of speaking to people. They spoke to half of government, which is fine. They spoke to individuals outside the supermarkets, which you could say is fine. But when you look at who they spoke to, many of those people were involved in development: the Property Council NT; the Real Estate Institute; the Australian Institute of Architects; the Planning Institute; the Urban Development Institute of Australia; and the Chamber of Commerce. There were a great many people you should talk to, as well as a few members of parliament, government departments, etcetera.
Here we need to be broader than that. Those at Michels Warren Munday would not have put this in if they did not believe it reflected the consultation process. This is from their survey, on page 35, the last page, which includes comments on the consultation process:
- ‘I have read the proposed regional land use plan and am concerned that it does not take into account of previous feedback from the community. It is a plan for developers and not for the long-term benefit of the residents of the Darwin and surrounding areas’ ...
A rural resident said:
- ‘Genuine community consultation requires genuine mediation processes – as with Lands, Planning and Mining Tribunal appeals that record changed development proposals due to inclusive public input. With initial community consultation that takes into account of local wisdom and expertise, development is perceived as shared and owned by the community. Simply listening to local people without including their informed aspirations for the future sustainability of local, social, environmental and economic needs, makes a mockery of public consultation in participatory democracy’ ...
It was not until people realised what was happening – until a notice of intent fell off the back of a truck and about nine people realised their land was going to be turned into Service Commercial and the promised road to Glyde Point would be 50 m from their back fence – that they formed a group and wanted the Planning Commission to go and talk to them. They had to drag, kicking and screaming, a Planning Commission that should have been out there from day one. That is my problem. You might laugh and say, ‘Oh, Gerry Wood …’.
This is the A3 version of an A4 document you issued. There was not one planning meeting in relation to this. People were given this and that and asked to comment. Planning is complicated and difficult and affects everybody’s lives. People make money out of planning. People even lose money in planning. People find their amenity is destroyed if planning is incorrect. That document is what people received. They were asked to comment on that over Christmas. Was there any public consultation? None!
I held four meetings and tried to be as neutral as possible. I can show you my PowerPoint presentation. I showed the people the existing plans for the rural area, the ones we live under now. I compared them with what was being proposed and told people at those meetings, ‘Go away and have a think about it’. I tried to do my best to make sure people were consulted. I did not have tomatoes thrown at me. The only reason you have tomatoes thrown at you is when people do not trust your reason for being there. You need to take people at face value and as mature citizens who can and want to understand and be part of the decision-making process.
There were no public meetings when this book was issued. This came out at the Darwin Royal Show. That was the result of this one. I held two public meetings – I literally ran out of time – and asked people what they thought.
You can say I am throwing rocks, but you are wrong. I will criticise when I need to, but I try to be positive. I try to work through the system. I am criticised because I have come here today, not because I want to show off because we have the majority in parliament, because I …
Mr Tollner: That is what you are doing.
Mr WOOD: No. I am desperate to have this fixed. If the developers and people get together and say, ‘We are fine with it’, that is it, I will not keep arguing about it.
Do not come in here, minister, and complain about what is happening and put it as if this is some type of circus I am trying to put forward. You need to look at yourself. One, two, three, four members of your party are the reason why you are in the position, not me. I have stood here all the time and not changed my position as an Independent. Your party is losing members and another member is thinking about it. I am not the reason for this mess here. I am bringing forward something that had to be on urgency because it turned up in Friday’s paper and it needs looking at.
Minister, you again said I am throwing rocks. Come on, tell the truth. I came to see you recently. You asked me for some suggestions about governance. I put those to you as honestly as I could, saying how the government could improve itself from a governance point of view. I told you that you needed to put this plan on hold because it had not been done in a way where people felt they had been consulted. That was a positive thing for your government. I was not knocking the government; I was saying I felt these are things that could improve the way you operate. To now say I throw rocks is mean.
It is my media release they took some of the information from and I can show you the e-mails. They asked me if they could use some of it.
Please, I am not standing here just for the sake of talking; I am trying to do something positive. I do not want to see something that, once approved, then that is it. I am confident that through proper consultation and people being given options and discussing the effect this will have, through a discussion about why we cannot build Weddell – you cannot take this discussion on its own. You cannot put 70 000 people in the rural area and say, ‘We will build Weddell one day’. You are at the crossroad, at the spot where you have to make up your mind. Which way is the government going? Will it build Weddell as a city and leave the rural area developed as villages or say, ‘We are not interested in Weddell; let’s turn it over to private landowners and we will build a pseudo-Weddell’? As you know, on the plan before the Planning Commission it is called East Weddell. That area still has 27 000 people in it.
I am running out of time, but I want to give the minister an idea why I am not knocking things, but I want to make sure things are right. For instance, in the area we are talking about between Hughes and Noonamah there is a cattle export facility, smack in the middle. Just up the road there is a feedlot which is going before the EPA at the moment. Further down there is the abattoir. What effect will this development have on that?
We are saying – and I am presuming the Chief Minister is saying – we have a great future with cattle exports to Indonesia, Vietnam and China. Where will we put the facilities? Will we stick them all at Batchelor? What thought is being given to that part of our economic development? How will this development affect it?
I am not raising these issues because I am saying you cannot have development, I am saying there is a big picture that needs to be looked at, a community that needs to be spoken to, many issues we need to discuss, and we should not be doing this without making sure the processes are proper and the governance is correct.
I am passionate about my rural area. I asked some police the other day what the crime rate for the rural area was. They said they had two break-ins about a month ago. I like the area because it gives Territorians an option to raise their family and have chooks, a bit of bush and a quad bike if they keep the noise down. All of those options mean you can raise a family with kids having opportunities they cannot always get on a 300 m block with not even enough room to play French cricket in the back yard, if you have a back yard.
I hope the government supports that option, but I do not get the feeling it supports it or cares. We have so much land in this area but all we can talk about is infill. We can build Weddell. We can build industry in Weddell such as service industries. We can build schools in Weddell. We can make Weddell a small city that is sustainable, if we want to. We should not be turning the rural area into a pseudo version.
Madam Speaker, I move an amendment to the motion by adding another paragraph:
4. the effect of this motion should not in any way prevent the advance of the Palmerston hospital, hospital precinct and associated works.
Debate suspended.
The Assembly suspended.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of Years 11 and 12 Legal Studies students from O’Loughlin Catholic College accompanies by Louise Delahunty. On behalf of honourable members, welcome to Parliament House. I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
RESPONSES TO PETITIONS
Petition Nos 42, 47 and 48
Petition Nos 42, 47 and 48
Mr CLERK: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 100A, I inform honourable members that responses to Petition Nos 42, 47 and 48 have been received and circulated to honourable members.
The text of the response will be placed on the Legislative Assembly website. A copy of the response will be provided to the member who tabled the petition for distribution to petitioners.
- Petition No 42
Stop the Banana Freckle Eradication Program
Date presented: 25 February 2015
Presented by: Ms Purick
Referred to: Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries
Date response due: 25 August 2015
Date response received: 23 July 2015
Date response presented: 25 August 2015
Response:
- Stop Eradication and Save our Banana Plants.
The National Banana Freckle Eradication Program (the program) is working to eradicate the new strain of banana freckle from the Top End and Australia. This nationally important program has been approved and funded by all Australian states and territories and the banana and nursery industries of Australia. The program, worth more than $20m, is the largest response to a plant pest in Australia. The Northern Territory (NT) is at the forefront of a nationally important program that confirms its strong commitment to biosecurity. The NT and Australia have a strong history of eradicating pests and diseases and protecting our primary industries and the environment.
The eradication of the new strain of banana freckle from the NT and Australia ensures the banana growers of Australia continue to be highly productive and produce wholesome bananas. Overseas experience has shown the impacts of banana freckle to be significant. The eradication will support the continued growth of the banana industry in the NT.
The first of three phases of the program has come to an end. The main activities of the first phase were restrictions on movements for banana plants and fruit in six declared quarantine zones across the Top End and destruction of all banana plants in each of the six zones. Any banana plant in any one of the six zones is a potential host for banana freckle and their removal is the only way to ensure Australia is banana freckle free.
The community has shown good support for the program. With the great understanding and support from householders, surveillance of more than 41 500 addresses has identified almost 9500 addresses with banana plants. Householders have shown great patience as field staff returned many times to validate information.
Banana plants have been destroyed from the 9500 addresses with householders and commercial growers completing destruction of their own plants at more than 2300 of the 9500 addresses. That is more than 25% of addresses where householders destroyed their own plants. What a great effort! I thank the community for their great support for the program. Further, I acknowledge that the destruction of banana plants for some in the community has been a difficult decision. I thank those who have made those difficult decisions.
Bananas continue to be readily available across the Top End.
People of the Top End in the declared quarantine zones will be able to replant bananas from 1 May 2016. After the 12-month sentinel period from May 2016 to May 2017, the planting of banana plants across the Top End will return to normal. Householders and growers will be able to source banana plants from their usual suppliers. Those suppliers will be able to provide the varieties wanted by consumers and including those heritage varieties kept by some growers.
Petition No 47
Stop Eradication Program and Save our Banana Plants
Date presented: 16 June 2015
Presented by: Ms Purick
Referred to: Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries
Date response due: 1 December 2015
Date response received: 10 August 2015
Date response presented: 25 August 2015
Response:
Stop Eradication and Save our Banana Plants.
The National Banana Freckle Eradication Program (the program) is working to eradicate the new strain of banana freckle from the Top End and Australia. This nationally important program has been approved and funded by all Australian states and territories and the banana and nursery industries of Australia. The program, worth more than $20m, is the largest response to a plant pest in Australia. The Northern Territory (NT) is at the forefront of a nationally important program that confirms its strong commitment to biosecurity. The NT and Australia have a strong history of eradicating pests and diseases and protecting our primary industries and the environment.
The eradication of the new strain of banana freckle from the NT and Australia ensures the banana growers of Australia continue to be highly productive and produce wholesome bananas. Overseas experience has shown the impacts of banana freckle to be significant. The eradication will support the continued growth of the banana industry in the NT.
The first of three phases of the program has come to an end. The main activities of the first phase were restrictions on movements for banana plants and fruit in six declared quarantine zones across the Top End and destruction of all banana plants in each of the six zones. Any banana plant in any one of the six zones is a potential host for banana freckle and their removal is the only way to ensure Australia is banana freckle free.
The community has shown good support for the program. With the great understanding and support from householders, surveillance of more than 41 500 addresses has identified almost 9500 addresses with banana plants. Householders have shown great patience as field staff returned many times to validate information.
Banana plants have been destroyed from the 9500 addresses with householders and commercial growers completing destruction of their own plants at more than 2300 of the 9500 addresses. That is more than 25% of addresses where householders destroyed their own plants. What a great effort! I thank the community for their great support for the program. Further, I acknowledge that the destruction of banana plants for some in the community has been a difficult decision. I thank those who have made those difficult decisions.
Bananas continue to be readily available across the Top End.
People of the Top End in the declared quarantine zones will be able to replant bananas from 1 May 2016. After the 12-month sentinel period from May 2016 to May 2017, the planting of banana plants across the Top End will return to normal. Householders and growers will be able to source banana plants from their usual suppliers. Those suppliers will be able to provide the varieties wanted by consumers and including those heritage varieties kept by some growers.
Petition No 48
Yirrkala Community Child Safety and Wellbeing Team Practitioner
Date presented: 18 June 2015
Presented by: Ms Walker
Referred to: Minister for Children and Families
Date response due: 3 December 2015
Date response received: 23 July 2015
Date response presented: 25 August 2015
Response:
The Department of Children and Families continues to fund and retain the Community Child Safety and Wellbeing Team Practitioner position based at Yirrkala.
The Department of Children and Families strives to deliver the best outcomes for vulnerable children and families and while there is no intention to cease the Community Child Safety and Wellbeing Team Practitioner at Yirrkala, the role may change and develop over time to meet child protection needs.
MOTION
Postpone Amendments to the
Postpone Amendments to the
Continued from earlier this day.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, the government, in desperation, has plucked out something it can find that is not right with this motion about amendments to planning. Members are clutching at straws by saying this threatens the future of Palmerston Regional Hospital is nonsense from a desperate and nonsensical government. The reality is the only threat to the Palmerston Regional Hospital in the three years the CLP has been in government has been the CLP itself.
If we had proceeded with the plans instigated under Labor, those people who live in the Palmerston and rural area would have had access to the Palmerston Regional Hospital and its services by the end of this year. If Labor was elected as an alternative government we would ensure that development of the Palmerston Regional Hospital progresses.
Finally, after three years of fighting, they have at least some works under way for commencement of that hospital. Let us not forget that the delays associated with this hospital are entirely a result of the bungling and infighting within the CLP for three years that has resulted in a revolving door of Cabinet ministers, and with that a revolving door of Planning and Health ministers. As we all know, on the record is a very infamous Cabinet meeting where, allegedly, the Treasurer hurled Cabinet folders at former Chief Minister, Terry Mills, over the issue of Palmerston Regional Hospital. Let us be very clear about this: any threat to Palmerston Regional Hospital under this motion before the House is a furphy. Only the CLP poses a threat to the future of Palmerston Regional Hospital.
They cannot even agree on when it will be opening its doors. We only have to look back to estimates. The Health minister stands by his statement that it will be opening its doors in May 2018, despite the Chief Minister and the Treasurer saying during the estimates process that would not be the case, as Palmerston Regional Hospital will not be opening its doors until the third quarter of 2018. That is a significant difference of opinion which is the centre of a wager between the Health minister and the Chief Minister. I cannot remember how much they bet, but they put that bet on the record before the parliament.
Madam Speaker, I support the amended motion. The minority government is in for a wakeup call. I thank the member for Nelson for bringing this amended motion before the House.
Mr TOLLNER (Lands and Planning): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for providing the amendment. At least it gives a little certainty about the construction of the Palmerston hospital, and for that, I am glad.
It is also a supporting amendment for the Holtze Area Plan. For those people who are not aware of what that is, I will table it so people can see what is being discussed. We are not talking about 70 000 residents going into this area. This is a plan for the hospital and its immediate environs.
Currently the Litchfield Sub-Regional Land Use Plan is being conducted. Public consultation is occurring as we speak in relation to the Litchfield Sub-Regional Land Use Plan, of which the Holtze Area Plan is a part. The idea of ripping out the Litchfield section of the Darwin Regional Land Use Plan and going back to the drawing board would kill that project. As I said prior to lunch and the member for Nelson making the amendment, this motion as it was would have killed the Palmerston hospital. I thank the member for Nelson for making the amendment. I must point out that this motion is unworkable …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, you can only speak to the amendment, which is about the hospital.
Mr TOLLNER: Sorry, Madam Speaker. I am speaking to the amended motion …
Madam SPEAKER: No, just the amendment.
Mr TOLLNER: Very tricky. I wish to speak on the amended motion, which is unworkable irrespective of the amendment. There is a range of reasons for that. If you bear with me, member for Nelson, I may be able to make life easier for you so you can accomplish what you want with further amendments.
On 17 December 2013 the NT Planning Commission released a document titled Towards a Darwin Regional Land Use Plan 2014. This publication presented the commission’s preliminary thinking on land use planning for the region and built upon community feedback received on the briefing note released to the public in July 2013, which explored the process, scope and key issues in developing the Darwin Regional Land Use Plan. Ninety-three submissions were received on the preliminary publication.
The Planning Commission then sought public feedback on the draft land use plan between 23 July and 1 September 2014. As part of the consultation process, the Planning Commission provided 25 briefings for stakeholders and set up displays to engage with the public. About 530 stakeholders, including groups and individuals, were directly involved in that consultation, while 54 submissions provided feedback on the draft plan.
The revised plan was exhibited as a proposed amendment to the NT Planning Scheme, with submissions closing on Friday 19 December 2014. The exhibition period was subsequently extended to 16 January 2015, and a total of 178 submissions were received. The reporting body, the Planning Commission, held a hearing on the evening of 18 February 2015, and provided the member for Nelson, rural resident Di Tynan and Dean Chambeyron – who is the Northern Territory Regional Manager of the Housing Industry Association – with the opportunity to address their submissions at a further hearing on 2 March 2015.
On 10 July 2015 the Darwin Regional Land Use Plan 2015 was included in the NT Planning Scheme as a policy document which will guide decisions by the Development Consent Authority on development applications. The Darwin Regional Land Use Plan sets the broader framework for land use development in the Darwin region.
The member for Nelson is proposing a review of a component of the land use plan. The land use plan cannot be reviewed in part, as suggested by the member for Nelson. By definition, the Darwin Regional Land Use Plan is a regional plan. The rural area forms a part of future expansion of the Darwin region. To facilitate what the member for Nelson is asking for would require an NT Planning Scheme amendment to be exhibited to remove the Darwin Regional Land Use Plan from the Northern Territory Planning Scheme as a policy document. This would be a significant amendment and will create a level of uncertainty in the broader community. As a significant amendment, the amendment would have to be advertised for a minimum of 28 days, consideration of submissions and a further reporting body hearing to consider the submissions lodged would be required, followed by consideration and a decision by the minister for revoke. This would, as a minimum, take three months.
The NT Planning Commission then would be required to review the whole land use plan and reengage the whole of the regional community, not just Litchfield. If the member for Nelson is suggesting the purpose of this consultation is to remove urban and peri-urban areas such as Holtze and the Noonamah locality from the plan, the Planning Commission will need to find equivalent land to cover the growth of the Darwin region in the short and long term. The plan cannot be reviewed in isolation as peri-urban and urban areas form the basis of the broader plan.
The Planning Commission has embarked on the subregional plan which will replace the Litchfield Planning Concepts and Land Use Objectives of 2002, which I understand the member for Nelson was inextricably involved with at the time. This will address rural activity centres and land in between. This will be completed for statutory exhibition in early 2016.
This amended motion is completely unworkable. The member wants to pull out the Litchfield part of the Darwin Regional Land Use Plan in isolation. I have to question what the member for Nelson is up to. Is he trying to frustrate the planning process because he thinks we are all corrupt, that we are on the take, as some members have suggested in this place? In fact some members have suggested that I am on the take. I take offence to that.
Is he suggesting the whole planning scheme needs to be torn up and thrown away, and we should put a moratorium on the entire development of the Darwin region until some process is arrived at for a new way of planning in the Northern Territory? It is very hard to understand what the member for Nelson is proposing in this motion and the direction he is trying to give government, because fundamentally this amended motion, irrespective that it gives some certainty to the new Palmerston hospital, is unworkable.
I know the opposition and the Independents are very keen to flex their muscles and show the public that we are an incompetent minority government. But you still need to be very careful about this. In my view this is backfiring on the Independents and the Labor Party because there is only one way this can go if you want to enforce government to go down this path, and that is a full moratorium on all development across the Top End. That is not really what members opposite are chasing.
I do not know why members opposite cannot be a little more honest and up front and say, ’This issue is not about planning, it is about upsetting the parliament, creating mayhem and chaos and demonstrating that you are a minority government and you can no longer make decisions’. If that is your goal, good on you. I do not agree with it, but good on you; you can demonstrate that. You can all band together and be Labor Independents, if you want to call it that, or ‘the opposition’ as a whole. You can all jump on board with the member for Nelson and use this stalking horse called planning as a vehicle to somehow demonstrate the government is not functioning. But be warned. If you seriously want to push this motion and create this sort of mayhem in our planning scheme, that is what you will do if you support this amended motion. It is wrong at the outset. It has been a great stunt and I have loved sitting here listening to debate from both sides. You have made your point: we are a minority government. Hear, hear! We have found that out.
But as for governing you have made a silly mistake because you have demonstrated today that you could not be trusted to govern because you do not do the leg work. You do not do the research and understand what is going on.
As I said earlier in relation to the original motion, the Planning Commission is consulting more than anybody has ever consulted in the past. It is not just show circuits or turning up to Gerry’s public meetings. It is not just doing pub and town hall meetings, it is getting out there talking to people, doorknocking. We are polling for goodness sakes. We have brought professional experts in to do market research, to telephone people and run focus groups so we get a real idea of what people’s views are, not just in the rural area but across the Northern Territory ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I advised you before that you are meant to be talking just to the amendment, not to the amended motion.
Mr TOLLNER: Sorry, Madam Speaker, I am speaking to the amended motion.
Madam SPEAKER: No, no, the amendment.
Mr TOLLNER: The amendment and the amended motion.
Madam SPEAKER: No, just the amendment, member for Fong Lim: ‘Point 4, the effect of this motion should not in any way prevent the advances of the Palmerston hospital’.
Mr TOLLNER: Okay, Madam Speaker, I do not want an argument. I am speaking to the amendment.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr TOLLNER: The amendment, taken in conjunction with the rest of the motion, shows it is unworkable. It will not work. You are demonstrating that, irrespective if you are prepared to listen to reason on this amendment, you have not done the leg work across the whole motion ...
Ms Fyles: Your government has not done the leg work.
Mr TOLLNER: I did not come into this place with this motion; it was sprung on us this morning as soon as we sat down. You asked for standing orders to be set aside and made a point of surprising the government. One would have thought that in surprising the government you would have done some leg work, got some information together and put a workable motion to this parliament. But in all haste to show this is an unworkable government, you have failed in the most basic test: bringing something sensible into the Chamber.
For that reason, we cannot support the amended motion. It will be a test for the Independents and our Labor members opposite to see just how twisted they are and whether they want to further the point that the whole place is dysfunctional …
Ms FYLES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 62. What the Treasurer is now starting to waffle on about is quite offensive.
Madam SPEAKER: Treasurer, if you could just tone your language down, please.
Mr TOLLNER: Okay, Madam Speaker. It is an exercise in political correctness this place, is it not? You have to be so careful. I will make an effort to speak in nice terms of people like Tinker Bell, rather than twisted up views ...
Ms Fyles: Mature debate.
Mr TOLLNER: Yes. Part of mature debate is understanding what you are talking about.
The member for Barkly said this morning that the previous Labor government had the members for Nelson and Goyder on board. ‘They supported our plans in the rural area.’ Really? What parallel universe are you living in?
I have a classic media release somewhere which demonstrates how on board the members for Nelson and Goyder were with Labor’s planning scheme, which was to develop the whole of Blake Street with high-rise buildings and to put them into the botanic gardens. In fact, it is what the developer at 4 Blake Street used as his supporting documentation when he went to the Development Consent Authority. But we now hear Labor saying, ‘No, you cannot have development in The Gardens’. It was your plan. The developer used your plan to back his application. This is where the Labor Party will always walk two sides of the street. It will say one thing and do the opposite.
Madam Speaker, I am not accusing the member for Nelson of that. He has always been a bit quirky in his views, I will give him that much. Member for Nelson, I appreciate where you are coming from, trying to show the government is destabilised and that type of thing.
As the Chief Minister said in Question Time, we are focused on one thing and one thing only, and that is fundamentally doing what is best for Territorians and driving economic growth.
Amendment agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the amended motion be agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
- Ayes 13 Noes 12
Ms Anderson Mr Barrett
Ms Fyles Mr Chandler
Mr Gunner Mr Conlan
Mrs Lambley Mr Elferink
Ms Lawrie Mrs Finocchiaro
Ms Lee Mr Giles
Mr McCarthy Mr Higgins
Ms Manison Mr Kurrupuwu
Ms Moss Mrs Price
Ms Purick Mr Styles
Mr Vowles Mr Tollner
Ms Walker Mr Westra van Holthe
Mr Wood
Motion agreed to.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Adopt New Sessional Order Regarding Ministerial Statements
Adopt New Sessional Order Regarding Ministerial Statements
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended that would prevent me from immediately moving a motion in the following terms for debate and decision by the Assembly ahead of all other business today:
That the Assembly adopt a new sessional order which will:
1. suspend the operation of Standing Order 258 and
2. order that a minister may make a statement on government policy, a government decision, a government action or on a proposed government action at any time when there is no question before the Assembly, provided that copies of the statement are distributed to all members of the Legislative Assembly by 5 pm the day before the statement is made.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I remember hearing yesterday on the news that the leader of opposition business predicted chaos in the House today. Clearly she is right by virtue of the fact they want to start suspending standing orders and creating chaos in this House. This is the role they are now pursuing.
I get what the member for Nelson was doing. I have some time for the member for Nelson because he works as a pretty genuine operator in this place. The same cannot be said for the member for Nightcliff because she is whingeing about the fact we have arrived at a point where we do not trust the other side with statements. We do trust the other side with statements. We delivered the statements to a couple of Independents because they do not have a history of leaking those statements.
Ms Walker: Oh, God!
Mr ELFERINK: I hear ‘Oh God’ from the leaker extraordinaire. The member for Nhulunbuy proudly leaked this information, then she said in this House she leaked this information. What would we have made of it as a jurisdiction if the minister, for whatever reason, had to make an amendment to that statement from the time it was circulated to the time it was delivered in this House? Then whatever she leaked would be wrong. The House does not possess the statement until such time as the House hears the statement. This is why the standing order in relation to the statement is quite clear; that the statement is circulated when the minister gets to their feet.
As a matter of courtesy, historically those statements have been issued earlier than that. I, for one, have argued on this side – amongst ourselves – that we should extend that courtesy to members opposite. There has been resistance to that notion by virtue of the fact we open the newspaper in the morning and see that members opposite have made public comments in relation to a statement that has not yet been delivered in this House.
How are we supposed to trust the members opposite? Here is an amendment off the floor of the House that is so urgent we must stop the business of parliament and vote to suspend our standing orders, the book which guides us and sets the rules for this House. The motion before this House is that we suspend this book. We get rid of it. There is the rule book; it is gone. Now it is a free-for-all. Do you know what the status and the value of the argument is? We want to change the time that a statement is circulated. Talk about using a sledge hammer to crack an egg!
What say you to this idea? During notices today, the member could have said something like, ‘Madam Speaker, I give notice of the following motion’, then tomorrow at 5.30 pm the member could argue that motion. Or alternatively she could have said to us, ‘We have a real problem with this. We might give you an absolute cast-iron guarantee that we will not leak those statements prior to …
Ms Lawrie interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! Minister, you have the call.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, prior to coming in here, they could ring us and say, ‘Okay, we know there has been a bit of history here. Here is the deal. We promise we will not leak the statements’. Do you know what the response from this side of the House would be? ‘Okay, we could probably live with that. But you have form and you will be on notice.’
But the response from the members opposite is, ‘No, we leaked it and we are proud to have leaked it.’ That is what the member for Nhulunbuy did. She was proud to have leaked the statement; she had no problem with leaking the statement.
What if we had delivered a completely different statement or more importantly, what if we had not delivered the statement at all the next day because there was an error in the draft or we had another piece of business before the House which prevented the statement from being delivered? There would be the member for Nhulunbuy, standing out the front making all these comments about this statement that was never delivered in the House.
We extend the courtesy because we would like to see the quality of debate improved. That is why the courtesy has always been extended that the statement was circulated the night before. That is why we deal with the members in accordance with the way they deal with us. These are mere operational issues; we should not make political footballs out of them. But not only do they want to make a political football out of this, now they want to suspend standing orders to the nth degree to make sure they can pursue this issue.
Look at the enormity of the suspension – the undemocratic processes you have all complained about across the other side we have heard ad nauseam – considering the magnitude of the thing you are trying to redress. Frankly, if you had a chat with us and gave us a guarantee you would not leak the information, you would not have to do any of this nonsense.
The problem is it is the government’s or ministers’ prerogative whether or not they deliver a statement. If the statement is delivered the night before in its written form, or alternatively on the morning the statement is made, you still cannot refer to it because it has not yet been given in the House. It is only when the minister makes the statement that he necessarily, by virtue of the enormity of these documents as a general rule, has to make the statement available.
Madam Speaker, we would be happy to go into negotiations with the members opposite to try to find a way through this, but suspending standing orders for this cause? I am sorry, that is a nonsense.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, we propose this motion today on urgency. There are two proposed statements for debate from the Chief Minister and the Deputy Chief Minister. I am sure most Territorians would agree that their portfolios are very important, yet the non-government members have no idea what these statements are about. It is an ongoing culture of cover-up by the CLP government. All we know is there is a statement by the Deputy Chief Minister and the Chief Minister, but we were not given those statements to get that information. It would be reasonable for all 25 members of this House to see those statements at 5 pm the day before.
This motion is urgent because those statements will come before us later today, yet the non-government members – the five Independent and eight Labor members – have not seen those statements. All we know is the Chief Minister and the Deputy Chief Minister are bringing statements before the House. This is ...
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 63. This is not relevant to the motion. She is debating the motions; this is a motion to suspend standing orders.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, the member is summarising her motion to suspend standing orders, then it will be put to the vote. Member for Nightcliff, you have the call.
Ms FYLES: This is a test of a government that says it wants to be more consultative. The Chief Minister has said he wants to be open and to consult with people. This is a chance for the government to restore order to the House; where non-government members can receive those statements at 5 pm the day before they are debated so everyone can have the time to make a thoroughly considered response. It is a simple courtesy and is in the best interest of the Northern Territory. Therefore, I move the motion.
The Assembly divided:
- Ayes 13 Noes 12
Ms Anderson Mr Barrett
Ms Fyles Mr Chandler
Mr Gunner Mr Conlan
Mrs Lambley Mr Elferink
Ms Lawrie Mrs Finocchiaro
Ms Lee Mr Giles
Mr McCarthy Mr Higgins
Ms Manison Mr Kurrupuwu
Ms Moss Mrs Price
Ms Purick Mr Styles
Mr Vowles Mr Tollner
Ms Walker Mr Westra van Holthe
Mr Wood
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Adopt a New Sessional Order Regarding Ministerial Statements
Adopt a New Sessional Order Regarding Ministerial Statements
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, I move:
That the Assembly adopt a new sessional order which will:
1. Suspend the operation of Standing Order 258 and
2. Order that:
- A minister may make a statement on government policy, or on a government decision, or on a government action or on a proposed government action at any time when there is no question before the Assembly, provided that copies of the statement are distributed to all members of the Legislative Assembly by 5 pm the day before the statement is made ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Can we see a copy of the motion; it has not been circulated.
Madam SPEAKER: A copy will be forthcoming.
Ms FYLES: The CLP government, in its arrogance, changed a long-standing convention that statements were delivered the evening before to allow non-government members time to prepare for the statement and fully respond. This motion simply restores that convention of non-government members being provided with statements at 5 pm the day before. It is a simple reinstatement of a long-standing convention.
The Leader of Government Business this morning in the debate prior to this – and the Treasurer recently – claimed he was surprised about the motion this morning, but that it was critical that every statement brought into this parliament is debated and everyone is able to understand all points.
For over a year now, non-government members, at the same time the minister rises to speak, have been given a copy of the statement. In wanting proper and accurate debate – which is something you go on so much about, Leader of Government Business – providing statements to non-government members at 5 pm the day before will allow them the opportunity to prepare and have a well-considered speech.
I made my points earlier about why it was so urgent to suspend standing orders today. This afternoon we will have two statements to the House. One assumes they are very important as they are coming from the Chief Minister and the Deputy Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. However, non-government members know nothing about it. Restoring a time-honoured convention will allow non-government members access to these statements to review the information. Making a thoughtful speech is important.
We have seen an arrogant government not listen to the community and cut non-government members off. You are now a minority government and you need to start listening. This parliament is not chaotic; the government is chaotic. That chaos should not impact on other members of this Legislative Assembly. We all have the right to know what is scheduled for the next day so we can be involved in debate and provide a representation of our community and our shadow portfolios, not simply have statements dropped on our desk as the minister rises to speak. We are asked to speak on something when we do not know the details.
In restoring this convention to the House a courtesy will now be extended to non-government members who will be provided with statements so they can have the information and make speeches in the best interests of all Territorians. We have a number of portfolios. It is important that speeches are provided to non-government members so all 25 members of this House can see that detail ahead of time.
This simple measure of providing statements to all members of the House at 5 pm the day before is a real test of your government. Do you want to be more consultative? The Chief Minister talks all the time about being open and consultative. This is a chance to restore some order to the government, which impacts on the whole House.
I thank members for supporting the suspension of standing orders so we can debate this motion. Some of my colleagues want to provide some thoughts on this so I will keep my comments reasonably short.
Madam Speaker, it is an important fact that all members of this Legislative Assembly are elected by the community. We are here to represent our community and our shadow portfolios. An arrogant government changed a long-standing convention so statements were not provided the evening before. This motion simply restores that convention to allow non-government members to be provided with statements at 5 pm the day before so we can all be informed in our debates.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I will be moving an amendment to this because the argument is couched in a single term: convention. The convention has been, historically, that a ministerial statement was circulated the night prior to the minister making that statement to this House. Often under the former government it was circulated about 9 pm or 10 pm the night before.
If convention is what we are pursuing, then we must have a quid pro quo – a meeting of the minds halfway along the road. If they want the statement at 5 pm the night before, that is fine. However, the second part of the convention is that when that statement is received by that member it is treated as a matter of confidence ...
Ms Lawrie: Rubbish! You circulated it to your stakeholders from opposition. You are making that up!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: It is treated as a matter of confidence. We did not read about it in the newspaper the next day.
Put away your anger for once, member for Karama, it is eating you up inside.
Ms Lawrie: You are making it up.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: It is tearing you apart. It is causing you more grief than you could possibly imagine, member for Karama ...
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, through the Chair.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, through the Chair, I would like the member for Karama to find some peace in her life, because clearly she struggles with it.
Reading about a statement in the newspaper the next day did not please us. As a matter of convention, we also notify members opposite of the statements we are bringing before the House. The member referred to two matters coming before the House, one by the Chief Minister and one by the Deputy Chief Minister today. How did she know that? We told them there would be statements.
We circulated the statements last night. I asked for one to be circulated to the member for Nelson. Why? Because he observes the convention. I think the other one went to the member for Araluen because she also observes the convention. You lecture us about conventions. Here is the rub: you guys would do better to observe the conventions.
I was hoping this would be typed as I have only scratched it out, but I move an amendment to the motion that inserts after the word ‘made’ a full stop and a new sentence with the words: such statements when circulated are to be treated with absolute confidence and any circulation to be treated as a breach of privilege.
Therefore, you will have, as a privileged position in this House, access to government information before the public. That is one of the privileges that will come with this job.
Let us see how much the convention means to them, because what you will find from the members opposite is straightforward. They will vote for the motion, but they will want to circulate the thing. Convention will be a one-way street under this lot.
Madam Speaker, I want to see the statements circulated; I have said that before. All I want is the convention that they so stridently argue to be observed completely. Let us see how we go.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, speaking to the motion and the amendment, I supported the original motion. However, I had it in my mind that when I spoke, I was hoping someone would say there could be an informal agreement that any papers circulated would be treated with confidence – subject to the ability to ring up some legal people or someone who might have some knowledge of what was in the statement – and not be for public circulation. I have said previously that you should be allowed to get some advice on a statement.
I do not think I can support this amendment.
Mr Elferink: I will accept an amendment.
Mr WOOD: I could do that. If I was to bring an amendment to this I would delete all words other than ‘such statements when circulated are to be treated with confidence’. I could live with that.
Having a breach of privilege is overkill; I do not think that is what this is about. We need the ability to discuss it not only within our party, but in the case of Independents who get together occasionally – that does not make us a party, it is a get together with other people here.
If the minister was to change his amendment, or if others want to change it – I could change it if you want – I would prefer ‘such statements when circulate are to be treated with confidence’. I could support that motion which would cover what I have said ...
Mr Elferink: What is the sanction?
Mr WOOD: The sanction, as you realise, is …
Mr Giles: That we stop making statements.
Mr WOOD: The only sanction you had before was to stop people receiving it until the morning, then the statements were not properly discussed. If you want to bring in breach of privilege, it starts to sound like a hanging offence.
Mr Elferink: Privilege is like that.
Mr WOOD: That is right. But I am interested in hearing from this side what they think of the matter being held in confidence. I understand where this originated. I have been around long enough to know what happened. I am not saying I agree with that. I made the mistake once, and I got into strife about it. I made sure I did not do it again, not because I was worried about being told off. I just made an honest mistake.
Also you have to be mature enough in this parliament for members to be responsible, without needing rules and regulations that I believe are overkill. I would like to hear from the opposition whether they would abide by – even if it is not written down – at least some tradition, if you want to call it – I have forgotten the word you used …
Mr Elferink: Convention.
Mr WOOD: Convention. Some are arguing there is no convention. I do not know. But I still believe the principle that this should not be circulated widely when it has been given to someone is an important matter. If I was in the government, I must admit, I would not like to see a statement I was to make today end up in the front-page headlines of the NT News. That is a reasonable response you would expect from anyone in this parliament.
As it is now, that is overkill which I would not support. But I am interested in hearing the rest of the debate.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, are you proposing an amendment to the Leader of Government Business’s amendment, or are you proposing that his amendment be removed and you are proposing a new amendment, or neither?
Mr WOOD: I do not support the amendment, which is what we are talking to. I support the motion that was originally put.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, under Standing Order 146:
- An amendment proposed shall be disposed of before another amendment to the original question can be moved.
Do you wish to dispose of the Leader of Government Business’s amendment? Yes or no?
Mr WOOD: Yes.
Madam SPEAKER: The motion is that the amendment proposed by the Leader of Government Business be agreed to.
Motion negatived.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Speaker, I support the motion. There seems to be a rewriting of history here. I am one of the longest-standing members of this parliament, along with the member for Nelson. I have had the experience of reading ministerial statements to this House.
I can say very sincerely that when Labor was in government ministerial statements were circulated the afternoon or evening prior; we tried to get on or around the 5 pm to 7 pm mark. We knew very well they were circulated, distributed or passed on by the relevant shadow minister to their key stakeholders or advisers, people who they sought information and advice from. I remember in debate, time after time, shadow ministers referring to the feedback they had received from their various constituencies pertinent to that debate. What is wrong with that? Are we expected to sit here in the Chamber, in a silo, as 25 members of our community and not seek any feedback?
Where you used the word ‘confidence’, the concern is about whether it is held in confidence or read about in the paper. At the heart of the concerns raised – not the convention that has been made up, but the concerns raised – by the Leader of Government Business is whether it will be in the media the next day, prior to the statement being delivered in the House. To the extent of that concern, it is reasonable to mention it in conversations with the stakeholders you are seeking advice from. If it is a fisheries statement, as a shadow minister or as the member for Karama – and many people in my electorate love to fish and vote, both amateur and commercial – am I truly expected not to seek their opinions on information and detail led by government which goes to policy?
Often, reasonably, ministerial statements are part of policy evolution being announced. This is why we are a House of debate, because you then debate that policy and where it is moving to. Are we seriously expected to just keep that statement to ourselves and not seek the guidance, advice and information of people who it practically affects? I have used the example of fishing, but there could be a view on the Pillars of Justice the legal fraternity could provide information and guidance advice on.
It is surely about gaining and sharing knowledge and information in debate. These are statements. This is not legislation that has its own scrutiny process that sits, usually without urgency obviously, for a month. This is a statement. Statements tend to be the policy purview of government. It is reasonably the role of opposition and Independents to seek the guidance and views of their constituents and people who understand what the impact of that evolution of policy would be and to inform the House of their views on that.
Government may or may not take on board that debate. Government may proceed with the policy without any iterations following that debate or they might say, ‘The member for Araluen raised something I quite agree with. I will work with my department on incorporating those suggestions into this new policy.’ That is a House of debate.
Do you want to keep it out of the public domain prior to it formally being tabled in parliament? If that is your intent, will and desire, nothing precludes that in custom, practice or behaviour. There is nothing precluding a member of this House circulating a statement that obviously is not yet in the Chamber, but is intended for the next day. We all know that sometimes things crop up and the government advises the opposition, ‘We are not proceeding with that statement today, it will be dealt with on another day’. That happens. Nothing in this motion changes that. Nothing in this motion says the government still cannot decide to proceed with a statement or not.
This is about being reasonable and open, and consulting with Territorians and giving us all, as elected representatives of our community, the opportunity to consult with Territorians. What is wrong with that? What is wrong with saying, ‘We are distributing it; there it is’, and each of us accept and acknowledge it is not for public release because it has not been presented to parliament?
Yet how do you keep something in confidence when you have to give it to other people to get informed advice? A confidence bind around that is somewhat nonsensical. The idea of a privilege breach is extreme, but we are used to some extreme responses from this government, which leads to these sorts of debates, quite frankly. It was an extreme response to stop circulating the ministerial statements a day prior, then it became an extreme response to stop dropping them in the morning but just when debate commenced.
This, surely, is about restoring true policy debate to this Chamber and giving members of parliament the opportunity to be fully informed of debates coming before the House so they can undertake research and provide an informed policy debate. What harm is there in that?
We could continue with the bizarre drop-it-on-the-table practice this CLP government adopted, against convention, and have a political debate instead of a policy debate. However, if we have listened to Territorians and taken on board any of what they have had to say in the last months, it is that they want better from their elected representatives. They want people to genuinely have policy debates rather than the political slanging and swinging that does not attract them at all to the way they are represented.
I see this as a maturing of this Chamber and a genuine opportunity for the government to embrace policy debate. I cannot, for the life of me, work out why the government is so worried and frightened of that. If you create, in government, a ministerial statement and circulate it, surely you would be keen to hear the view of others about your policy contained within that? Surely you would be keen to hear from genuine stakeholders whose lives would be affected by your policy initiatives?
If you are not prepared to hear it how are you a truly representative government? What is wrong with being advised of an impact that perhaps would have been unforseen and picking that up in debate? Unless this is not truly meant to be a house of policy debate, which is a deep shame.
I hope the members of government ultimately will see fit to support this motion. I hope the members of government will say, ‘We are proud of our ministerial statements and of the effort, research, analysis and work that goes into creating them. Here they go to other members of parliament for scrutiny. We understand that by the nature of them being representatives of their communities, and being shadow ministers carrying responsibility across portfolio areas, that in their constituencies are stakeholders with expertise in the subject matter they will receive advice and information from.’
That would be a mature and eminently sensible approach. That is why there has been convention in this parliament prior to the current CLP government. There was no convention that it was never circulated from opposition to stakeholders. As a minister, time and time again I received feedback from shadow ministers and the then Leader of the Opposition saying, ‘This is what the stakeholder thought of this’. Clearly they had discussions overnight about it. I did not have a problem with that because it meant they were better informed and we were having more informed debates. What is wrong with that? Seriously!
Some were very capable and talented at doing that. Some excelled in the role of extending out to their key stakeholders, receiving information and incorporating it into their response to a government ministerial statement. With others, you just got their political or personal view. It varied from shadow minister to shadow minister. Those shadow ministers who made the effort to receive information made for a better policy debate in this Chamber.
Government ministers would hear things directly from a shadow minister, quoting what the organisation they had spoken to had to say. The word ‘draft’ is better than ‘in-confidence’. I take in-confidence as meaning I cannot pass it on to someone. I cannot say to the amateur fisherman in my electorate, ‘The government is intending to make this statement tomorrow. What is your view on the impacts of this? Is there a direction in which you want to see it taken?’
The term ‘in-confidence’ is defining. ‘Draft’ or ‘not for public comment’ is normal and probably more in line with the concerns of the Leader of Government Business. But at the end of the day what are you worried about? It is your work. You have gone to some effort to create that work. Surely you are proud of that work? You are proud enough to create it as a statement and bring it to parliament, so why are you worried that other people see it?
Stand and be proud of your own work and give Territorians the opportunity for some input into our policy debates. They are crying out for that; they want better government. They want a government that embraces a broader range of consultation and consideration, prepared to listen to views that are expressed which are not their own, but which contribute to debate.
Mr Deputy Speaker, that is why I support this motion. I thank the member for Nightcliff for bringing it forward.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this motion to allow greater scrutiny of ministerial statements before they are presented. I remember in opposition, sitting where the member for Wanguri sits now next to the member for Greatorex. We used to laugh at the ministerial statements brought on by the former Labor government. The member for Greatorex used to love calling them ‘puff pieces’ and to me they will always be that.
Even as a minister it used to run through my head that this was an opportunity for ministers to sell their wares, market their goods and tell everyone what a fabulous job they were doing. As the member for Karama just said, it is nothing to be ashamed of. But there has to be some discretion when ministerial statements are distributed so ministers feel they are leading the discussion rather than following it.
I am in a fairly unique position, which is growing in popularity. I have been in government, in opposition and now I am an Independent. Today as an Independent I support this motion that we all need some time to look at ministerial statements and get some advice from stakeholders, which may or may not be used to inform the debate. It can only enrich the debate if we have more time to ponder the content of the ministerial statements.
Governments almost instinctively try to avoid scrutiny and too much pressure, as well as too much bad media. I can relate to that in my time in government and as a minister. However, withholding ministerial statements to the very last minute until the minister is speaking is ludicrous. It is not in the spirit of parliamentary democracy. Scrutiny is essential and this motion opens the government up to the scrutiny it should have.
There are other measures we should consider, either today or at some point in the near future. Last year the CLP government reduced the number of sitting weeks by one week, which never really sat with me. I thought it was the wrong thing to do. The intention underlying that was to avoid scrutiny. Perhaps we need to put that on the agenda for debate by this parliament at some time. We should not be reducing the number of sitting weeks. If anything, we should be increasing the number of sitting weeks of the Northern Territory parliament.
The other thing the CLP government did during the time I was with them was separate the weeks of parliamentary sittings, so very rarely you have two weeks of sittings in a row. That was to avoid scrutiny. Now I am an Independent I am not so fussed on these ideas. Whatever it takes to improve the integrity of this parliament and the openness and accountability of government is a good thing.
When you are in government you tend to develop blinkers and tunnel vision. Sitting in the centre of this Chamber as an Independent has been an illuminating experience, seeing what games are played and strategies employed to benefit whatever side you are on, government or opposition.
Mr Deputy Speaker, for the time being I register my support for this motion brought on by the member for Nightcliff. It is in the spirit of good government.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. After negotiations with the other side and discussion with the Leader of the Opposition, I seek leave to make another amendment.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: We can do that, but let us exhaust this first please.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, my, oh my, how things change in this House. I recall sitting on that side of the House for four years, when ministerial statements were issued the evening or afternoon before and were so often documents that would be denigrated by the CLP opposition, described as ‘puff pieces’ and scoffed at. Yet now, with the realisation of minority government, suddenly these ministerial statements are very precious. I should add they are prepared and circulated widely by public servants who are in communication with the stakeholders. So on this issue of them being confidential documents – they are certainly not marked as such, not even an embargo on them at the time they are circulated – all we are guided by is convention.
The reaction or the overreaction of the government about what they described as ‘leaked documents’ is a bit of a stretch and has been overkill. I confess that I am the member who circulated, with very careful consideration, a ministerial statement from the Chief Minister about where things were up to in Nhulunbuy following the announcement in November 2013 that Rio Tinto was closing its alumina refinery, as a result of a failure to negotiate a gas deal, or a reneged gas deal with the government.
That is a pretty significant event for a local member. It was the most significant, catastrophic event that has occurred in Nhulunbuy in its 40-odd year history: 1100 jobs going; businesses suffering; families moving; and the mental anguish, quite apart from the economic impact. It is the most significant event I have had to deal with as the local member. I cannot remember exactly what the date was on the statement, but it would have been some time perhaps between late November and February, perhaps even March.
When I read the statement I discussed with a couple of colleagues about whether or not I might send it on to the Gove Community Advisory Committee. I was responsible for instigating this committee on the day the public meeting was held in Nhulunbuy with hundreds of people attending and hundreds outside the door trying to hear what the Chief Minister and Rio Tinto had to say about the way forward for our community. This Gove Community Advisory Committee worked tirelessly to provide advice to government to try to genuinely engage and work with both tiers of government, federal and Territory, with the very best interests of Nhulunbuy and its future at heart.
I circulated that statement late at night at 10 pm or 10.30 pm. I thought very carefully about the words I used in the e-mail providing a message to the people of that group. I did not step out with an anti-CLP message; it was a non-political message. It was simply inviting feedback. I needed to know whether or not those representatives on the Gove Community Advisory Committee thought the contents of this statement matched the sentiments and reality of what was happening on the ground. I worded it very carefully because I had a hunch it would come back at me, that government would be aware I had circulated it.
I had never previously circulated a ministerial statement to anybody. But as we have heard from the member for Karama, we know historically that of course these statements have been circulated to stakeholder groups. I did not circulate it to the media. I did not launch it on the Gove Noticeboard Facebook page, which has 4000-plus subscribers. I could have, but I did not want to. I thought that if I targeted the 22-member committee of the Gove Community Advisory Committee and got their feedback then that would help me inform debate the following day on the statement and do what is my responsibility, that is, to represent the views of the people of Nhulunbuy.
As a result we were no longer given a heads-up with ministerial statements. It has become even worse. I am not quite sure what we have done to deserve it, but they are now tabled at the time they are being delivered. How can anybody expect elected members of parliament to participate in a debate when they have not even seen the document being circulated? We are representatives. That means we represent people in our electorates. Of course we need to engage with them about ministerial statements where we see that it is appropriate to do so.
The actions of the government in ceasing to circulate in advance statements is punitive, and is designed to gag debate and have absolute control over the direction the debate takes. It is meant to gag members who may want a little more time to solicit the views of those they represent, whether they be a shadow minister or it is – as for me in this case – a local-member issue.
What is it that the government fears about this? I can assure the Leader of Government Business and the government that it is not our intention to come in here, day after day, now that you are a minority government, to amend standing orders to the nth degree, as the Leader of Government Business said. It is not our intention, given that I stepped out last week on behalf of the Labor opposition and announced a discussion paper about the future of our parliament and parliamentary reforms. The Leader of Government Business had a good crack at that during Question Time, wanting to make fun of it. That demonstrates how out of touch they are.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Territorians are tired of what they see going on in this parliament. They want to see change and mature and informed debate. It is about being reasonable and open. For that reason I fully support the motion before the House to amend this standing order to allow circulation of ministerial statements.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business)(by leave): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank honourable members for their forbearance in this matter.
After negotiation with the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Nelson I move that we insert after the word ‘made’ a new sentence: such statements, when circulated, are to be treated with confidence and any reproduction in the media is to be considered a breach of the Code of Conduct.
That is a fairly general term. Confidence will mean that it could be circulated to a limited group of people if necessary for the quality of debate to be improved. However, it is still up to the individual member to ensure it does not find its way into the media before the minister delivers the statement.
Mr Deputy Speaker, that is the wording and the intent of the amendment to the motion. We have the acquiescence of the member for Nelson and the opposition members, so let us see if we can get that one off the ground.
Amendment agreed to.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank everyone who participated in this debate for their contributions. We are elected by our communities to represent their views, and in doing so it is important for us to be in touch. That is why you will see every one of us holding community barbecues. Some of us sit by the road, some of us get to sit at the beautiful foreshore. It is our role in this parliament to represent the views of our communities.
Restoring the convention of providing non-government members of this House with statements the day before will allow us to have a more thorough policy debate rather than a puff piece with a political speech after it. Our community wants us to have informed policy debates and this to be a House of policy debates.
We must remember these statements are not just written by the minister the night before but are developed by public servants. Ministerial advisers provide their input, and of course they are signed off by ministers. Ministers are allowed to seek information and opinions and to discuss ideas in preparing their ministerial statements. To have a proper policy debate, one would expect it would be a common courtesy that shadow ministers are also afforded the opportunity to talk to key select stakeholders and important people about these statements.
It was interesting to hear the points from the members for Araluen and Karama, both former ministers. The member for Araluen spoke about enriching the debate, and the member for Karama from the perspective of being a former minister and knowing shadow ministers had researched and spoken to key stakeholders was a good thing.
In this House today, with our new minority government, we have seen a positive step of resolving to provide statements to all members the day before. It will allow them to research, and participate in an informed debate. Surely everyone can agree that is a good thing for the Territory parliament.
It is a privilege for me to be the member for Nightcliff, an elected member of this Legislative Assembly. We all take that responsibility very seriously. We want to participate in informed debate, and being provided with these statements so we can is good. We have seen the government members in the past gag views which are different to theirs. They have done that in a number of ways such as not giving us statements. Sharing ideas is a positive step. We should allow for proper debate, not simply one view because that is the only view we are allowed to hear.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this afternoon’s resolution is a positive step for the Northern Territory parliament. All members now have access to ministerial statements the day before so we can have an informed debate that will benefit the whole of the Northern Territory. I thank all of the members who have spoken to this motion.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
DOMESTIC AND FAMILY VIOLENCE AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 126)
(Serial 126)
Continued from 17 June 2015.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, the opposition welcomes this bill. We support the amendment to the Domestic and Family Violence Bill. Our Whip, the member for Nightcliff, provided advice to the government last night that we would support this bill. I thank the minister’s office, as well as the hard-working officials in the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice, for providing a briefing on why this amendment has been brought forward.
It is very clear that the amendment to section 42 of the act is about closing a loophole which has the potential to leave victims of domestic and family violence vulnerable and exposed because of some ambiguity around the wording of how police record a matter. As the explanatory statement said:
- The Domestic and Family Violence Amendment Bill 2015 provides for an amendment to section 42 of the Domestic and Family Violence Act which pertains to police Domestic Violence Orders (DVO). The amendment makes clear that an authorised officer does not have to personally record the matters contained in section 42(1) on the police DVO.
- This clause amends section 42(1) of the Domestic and Family Violence Act which sets out what matters must be recorded on a police DVO. The amendment allows an authorised officer to either record the matters on the police DVO personally, or to ensure that another police officer records the matters on the police DVO.
The issuing of a DVO is obviously an important measure for police, providing protection to a victim of domestic and family violence. It allows a DVO to be in place to ensure a person’s safety in urgent circumstances or, as the minister said in his second reading speech:
- … because it is not otherwise practicable in those circumstances to obtain a DVO by filing an application in the Local Court, and a Local Court DVO might reasonably have been made had it been practicable to apply for one. A police DVO may be made even if the defendant has not been given an opportunity to answer any allegation made in relation to the making of a police DVO.
This is all very sensible in providing an automatic protection. However, the ambiguity, I understand, arose from the wording of reporting arrangements of the authorised officer. Apparently the authorised officer had to be a rank of senior sergeant or above. In practical terms an officer of that rank may not necessarily have been on hand to physically complete the authorisation, hence a delay in completing the DVO. As we know in some of our remote stations there may not be an officer of that rank. As an elected representative from a remote area of northeast Arnhem Land, I can see that these very circumstances would arise in my own electorate and other parts of the Northern Territory as well.
Recognising the loophole existed has apparently been evidenced by an increasing number of respondents who argued that the police DVO, which has the particulars recorded by an officer who is not an authorised officer, is invalid. Thankfully, that interpretation has not been widely adopted by the courts. However, in the interest of safety of victims of domestic violence, this amendment is being made to put the matter beyond any doubt.
I acknowledge the magistrate – though I do not know his or her name – who escalated this loophole with the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice, which brings this amendment before us. I also acknowledge the agency and the minister for recognising that this loophole needed to be closed.
With a review of the Domestic and Family Violence Act and an issues paper launched in April of this year with submissions which closed at the end of July, I thank the minister for bringing forward this amendment now and not waiting for the completion of the broader review which will, no doubt, bring some new amendments to the act. If this amendment makes one person – woman or child – safer, then it is the right thing to do.
It was under the Labor government I was part of that we saw the introduction of a Domestic and Family Violence Act in 2007. I recall in my very early months as an elected member in this House participating in an important debate about amending the act – it was, in fact, in November 2008 – to make it mandatory to report domestic and family violence, and to recognise it as a community issue for which we all must accept responsibility in reporting domestic and family violence, and not turn a blind eye because such acts of violence might simply occur behind closed doors. We cannot say, ‘It is none of my business’, when we must accept, as a community, that it is indeed the business of all of us.
As we know, domestic and family violence continues to be massive issue for our community and our nation. I had the great honour of attending an address last week delivered by Australian of the Year, Rosie Batty, who has risen to national prominence born out of the tragic murder of her son at cricket practice in suburban middle-class Melbourne by his father, Ms Batty’s ex-husband, a known perpetrator of domestic and family violence. I was pleased to see that the Attorney-General also managed to attend this event to hear Ms Batty’s address.
Her strong stand, her articulation of the uncomfortable, heartbreaking and sometimes horrific truths about domestic and family violence were uttered such a short time after her son’s murder. She has led a national stand and conversation against the scourge that is domestic and family violence.
I was disappointed the auditorium at the Darwin Convention Centre was not overflowing with people who wanted to hear Rosie Batty speak and then participate in the Q&A forum which followed, which included Police Commissioner Kershaw, obviously Ms Batty, Charlie King and – forgive me, her name escapes me but she is the woman who heads up the White Ribbon organisation in the Northern Territory.
At this forum, the telling moment was when the emcee, Charlie King, a known and dedicated campaigner against domestic and family violence, invited the men in the audience to stand up briefly so they could be counted. Out of the 150 or so women, perhaps there were just nine or 10 men who attended this event. Through his No More campaign, Charlie King, instead of focusing on the victims of domestic and family violence, puts the call out to men across Australia to unite against violence and abuse within the family.
Seeing that show of men versus women in the audience highlighted to us all that domestic and family violence is a gender equality issue, and that we will fail in the battle to grapple and get rid of domestic and family violence if we cannot engage more men in the conversation and have more men stand up and say no more to domestic and family violence.
I was very pleased to learn that Ms Batty was able to visit a remote community, and had travelled with our Minister for Women’s Policy to the Tiwi Islands the day before to meet with women there to hear firsthand their stories and experiences of dealing with domestic and family violence in their community. As we know, it is important that all women have their voices heard when we know that, on average, two women are murdered every week in Australia as victims of domestic and family violence.
I thank the minister for bringing forward this bill and can confirm that the key stakeholders I have circulated this bill to, including NAAJA and NAAFVLS, have no issue with it.
I look forward to seeing what shape the review into the act will take by way of amendments which I am sure will be coming forward. I have seen at least one submission to that review and hope the views of stakeholders are considered and taken on board in order to make for stronger legislation.
While having good legislation in place is important to protect the victims of domestic and family violence and deal with the perpetrators, I urge the minister, who has responsibility for the relatively new domestic violence directorate within his agency of Attorney-General and Justice, to look broadly beyond the legislative instruments to try to work to shift and change community attitudes about domestic and family violence.
I am sure the minister will recall our exchange during the June estimates under the output group of the domestic violence directorate. We at least reached agreement that we do not really want to be opening more shelters and beds for women and children escaping domestic violence. We were talking specifically about the good work that happens in the Alice Springs Women’s Shelter. The minister had put to me whether I was suggesting we need to open more shelters. But we agreed the investment needs to be in prevention rather than having to see more women seeking shelter.
I like to think the Minister for Women’s Policy and Men’s Policy is also actively engaged with the community at a grassroots level to educate, change attitudes, challenge beliefs, confront issues of responsibility and lead a much-needed path for change. It is a responsibility which lies with all of us to combat and confront domestic and family violence across the Northern Territory.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend this bill to the House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I too support this amendment to the Domestic and Family Violence Act. While it is a simple change it is a very important one. When the minister made his second reading speech he summed it up very well:
- The amendment clarifies that the authorised police officer may cause the relevant particulars to be recorded on the police DVO by another officer, and it is not necessary for the authorised officer to record the particulars in person or be physically present when the particulars are recorded on the police DVO.
As the minister said there are times when this is required because of the urgency of the situation. It appears there has been some discussion in the legal circles as to whether the way the act has been written could be challenged, so it makes sense. You would not want a matter going to court and being thrown out on a technicality when the person who signed it was basically trying to save someone’s life or save them from serious injury. It makes a lot of sense. As he said:
- From an operational perspective, the police officer in the field contacts the authorised police officer, often by telephone, to seek authorisation to issue a police DVO. The police officer will then record the particulars as dictated by the authorised officer on the police DVO. The order can then be immediately served, thus providing immediate protection to the protected person.
That is what this whole matter is about. As small as it is, it removes that circumstance which technically could be challenged. We do not want that.
The member for Nhulunbuy raised the issue of domestic violence. I was also at Rosie Batty’s lecture – if I can call it that – recently and I listened carefully to what she had to say. I asked her a question and said on the day that whilst domestic violence is a major issue in our society, violence in general is a major issue. We have to be careful we do not get this into a gender situation and focus purely on one gender.
I worked on the island Ms Batty visited. I have seen horrendous fights between women, a lot caused by jealousy – absolutely terrible – which were cheered on. I have umpired football matches. You always get some violence – I should call it aggression – in football matches and that is normal; it is an aggressive game. But I have seen young boys walk up and smash someone in the face.
We need to not only emphasise that domestic violence is not okay, but violence in general is not okay. It is not a way to sort out problems. Otherwise we could turn this place into a boxing ring. If I disagreed with the minister for Planning – I do not know if I want to pick on him in a boxing ring, he is about six foot tall and a lot heavier than me. We do not sort our differences out by violence but by other means. We need to place more emphasis on violence not being the solution.
Look at the world today and the terrible situation some countries are in. I watch Al Jazeera television in the morning mainly because they present news and not gossip about trivial matters. There are some nations in the world where women and children are suffering because of war, and war is violence.
Although there is a focus on domestic violence and it is important we stop that, there is no doubt the majority of people affected by domestic violence are women. Overall we should place a greater emphasis on saying that violence is not the solution to working out problems.
I enjoyed the talk by Rosie Batty. She raised a few issues that sometimes are not raised, for instance psychological bullying and people’s finances being controlled by someone else, which can be a form of bullying. Obviously that does not come into what we are talking about today, which is physical violence, but it was good to hear what she had to say. From my point of view, it raised some matters that I did not consider as part of the broader domestic violence issues.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not have an issue with the amendment today. I had a briefing from the Law Society as well. I also had a briefing from the department, which I appreciate. I support this amendment.
Mrs PRICE (Women’s Policy): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the members for Nhulunbuy and Nelson. I support the Domestic and Family Violence Amendment Bill 2015 introduced by the Attorney-General.
Picture a woman in a small community physically beaten her whole life, where removing her from the situation would only bring more violence upon her or death; or a marriage where when a husband who has raped a women so brutally is convicted of such a crime and when he passes his brothers can have their way with her. Picture a young woman with children told by a man, whilst in a drunken rage, that if she ever leaves him he will hunt her down and kill her. Picture a young woman who is physically beaten and in intensive care in the hospital, only to have her family blame her for making him angry. She deserved that, they say. Picture a young woman who has suffered beatings, disrespected by an unfaithful partner time and time again. She eventually loses it and kills him.
Now picture a woman who has been beaten, dragged around, raped and shunned by the community for speaking out and leaving him, accused of being white but silenced for being black, having to move away for many years from the bullying and dominance of a governance system of violence, mental and physical. Every day her phone rings with news of another death, another young woman’s life lost to domestic violence or drink-driving.
Despite these adversities, she rises to stand up and speak for the young and old victims, to show that it is not acceptable anymore. Yes, it is hard. Yes, this is my story. I can contest to the consequences of using your voice. Voices like mine are not welcomed and become a catalyst of personal attacks.
Many people do not understand what Aboriginal women face in their lives, in remote regions particularly. This bill will support our plight. This bill will also enable the implementation of the second national plan to reduce domestic violence to be more effective.
I thank you, Attorney-General, for bringing it to this House.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank honourable members for their support. I do not think there is much to add to this. The matters of domestic violence are well known and have been articulated in this place.
As the Attorney-General, having shared ministerial responsibility with the Minister for Women’s Policy, the establishment of the Safety is Everyone’s Right policy has positioned the Territory not only well amongst the other jurisdictions, but, in my opinion and the opinion of many third parties, has positioned us best of all jurisdictions. We do not treat domestic violence as an isolated idea; we treat it as something government needs to respond to in its entirety, not at Executive Director or CEO level, but at the level of practitioners who respond to domestic violence issues on a daily basis.
As a consequence we now have the community safety committees occurring in Darwin, Katherine, Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Palmerston and, soon, Yuendumu, if I am not mistaken. The great appeal of that is it enables those who have frontline contact with families in crisis brought about by domestic violence to surround those families and effectively case manage them.
Up until now a police officer arriving at a scene would have gone through the process described in the legislative amendment before the House. That would have been the end of it until such time as that person was charged. What of the wife? If she was injured, there would have been medical attention. What of the children? There would have been almost no chance of any form of intervention or support from the NGO sector. The NGO sector would often not know, until such time as the wife and children sought succour from that NGO.
That is not to say that the only perpetrators are male, but I talk about domestic violence in a his-and-her structure because it is the most common occurrence. I ask honourable members to forgive me for my generalities in this space.
What we have in Alice Springs is nothing shy of amazing because we see 11 government departments, the frontline workers of which – not anybody up the food chain, the people who deal with these families on a daily basis – are creating a plan around particular families. When the police walk into that community and go about the business of arresting a person for domestic violence against their spouse, they then have that information that the police locked up Bill Smith for punching out Mary Smith in a domestic violence situation.
Those in the Health department who are sitting around the same table, say, ‘Yes, we know the Smith family, but we will throw some help around them’. The child protection system says, ‘Yes, the Smith kids. We will keep an eye on them. How will we keep an eye on them? We will enlist the Smith kids’ teachers.’ The Smith kids’ teachers will be able to speak to the child protection and health authorities to make sure the kids are not showing signs of undue stress caused by Bill Smith’s violence against his missus. Housing also has a role in this space, and then there are a number of other government departments that also sit around the table, including the federal government – Gott sei Dank – because that means there is also a capacity to manipulate things like income management, if it should be required, through the scourge of our community, which is the passive welfare system.
On top of that, we also share information with the NGO sector. So maybe there is space when we are throwing assistance around a family, for, let us say, St Vincent de Paul or any other number of NGOs, to also support the family. So you have about 20 people from a myriad of different organisations – government and non-government, federal and state – sitting there and asking, ‘What can we do with the Smith family? How do we surround them?’
When the trial program ran in Alice Springs there was a 3% return rate. I can tell you, as a copper of many years’ experience, once you got used to dealing with a violent family, a 3% return rate was unheard of. It would be normally 30% or 50%. That is anecdotal; I do not have any statistics at my fingertips to prove it. But there were certain houses you were used to going to. A 3% return rate – well, I have to say that is nothing shy of astonishing.
But that means you surround the whole family and share information. Of course, you get a little pushback with these sorts of policy structures because the first question you invariably get when you deal with policy structures like this is, ‘What about privacy?’ My answer is, quite simply Maslow’s hierarchy of needs has five levels. The first two levels deal with safety, security, shelter and sustenance – the staff of life: the fundamental human rights that keep us alive. Privacy is not covered by safety, shelter, security and sustenance. If you had such a thing as a Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, then it infers, logically, a hierarchy of rights. So, the right to safety, shelter, sustenance and security have precedence over the right to privacy. If you think about it, it makes sense.
I would be mortified if I had exposed a child to danger because I was too busy protecting that child’s privacy when their right to safety was in peril. It is bizarre, yet so often you still hear that argument in all sorts of circles, ‘Oh, we cannot share information. It is a breach of the right to privacy.’ Here is the drum, guys. No, it is not. It is perfectly lawful and within the terms of the privacy legislation that operates in the Northern Territory.
For those reasons we are achieving good results and we are continuing, as I understand it, to get good results at these committees as they roll out now. If you think about it, it intuitively makes sense because the plan you put around Bill Smith and his family will be different to the plan you put around the Jones family, or for that matter the Urakaringa family, the family from Yuendumu or a family from Tennant Creek, because each family will have its own problems. The more remote you are from your decision maker, the less effective those decisions can be. The decision-making process must be allowed to go all the way to the front line. It is our job, as community leaders, to support our decision makers, even when they screw up, because you are not going to get every one right.
If you want to show some courage in the leadership, political or senior bureaucrat environment, trust your staff. As long as they are acting in good faith and on the right side of gross negligence or criminality, they are doing their job. Let them get on with it and back them. When something does turn to crap, so what? For every one they get wrong, they will get nine right, and they will engage with their job in a way they have not engaged with it in a long time because they are trusted to do their job on the front line – that is exactly what this policy is about – and they make the right calls.
There is the Newtonian law of physics that says that with two objects in space, the gravitational effect of one on the other is directly and inversely proportional to your distance from it. That rule can also apply for decision makers. Your satisfaction with a decision maker will be directly and inversely proportional to your distance from that decision maker.
I believe the intervention that was instigated a few years ago by the former Howard government, was noble in intent, but awful in execution. When I saw how the intervention was rolling out on the ground when compared to the intent of Canberra, I often got the impression that somebody was trying to knit a jumper off a pattern whilst wearing baseball gloves. The consequence was something that did not look anything like the pattern and was hardly fit for purpose.
It is even through me as a decision maker in Darwin. I know places like Yuendumu, Tennant Creek, Hermannsburg and all those other places in remote communities because I lived and worked in them for many years. But I do not know the dynamic of what is happening right now. I do not know what is happening in a particular family – the Smith family or the Jones family or whatever it is family – in these remote communities, because I am not the person on the ground. So whilst I could probably make more finessed decisions than necessarily somebody based in Canberra who could not find Yuendumu on a map, it still would not place me close enough to be finessed enough to make the right decisions for each family. You transfer that responsibility down the food chain so the people who are working with that family on a day-to-day basis can call the shots. That is how you will protect people.
If there is a change of government in August next year, then one of the things I urge the incoming government to do, if it is the Labor Party, is keep a very close eye on this program because it is a world leader. We will become the benchmark nationally and internationally. I am very proud of the work we have done.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I have banged on enough. I am critically aware of the time frame. As a consequence of that I will say nothing more than to thank honourable members for the support in relation to this commonsense amendment. As a parliament, we speak with one voice in relation to domestic violence, which is of one strident resistance that puts the victim in the forefront of our minds.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
FINES AND PENALTIES (RECOVERY) AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 129)
(Serial 129)
Continued from 17 June 2015.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will be leading the response on behalf of the opposition to this bill. I thank the minister and the officials from the Department of the Attorney-General and Justice for the provided to me last week on this bill and other bills.
If the figures quoted in the minister’s second reading speech are correct then there would be general agreement that the recovery of fines is a very significant issue in the Northern Territory. As an opposition we are not convinced that importing punitive measures from other jurisdictions, without close consideration of the Territory’s unique geography, demographic and law enforcement environment, is the best approach to recovering outstanding fines. I will return to that important issue shortly.
A good starting point in this debate on punitive measures would be a more detailed analysis of the 63 000 individual fine defaulters identified by the minister’s second reading speech. I am not about to set a bunch of public servants scrambling to find figures but it would be interesting to know where they live, how many of these 63 000 fine defaulters have left the Territory, how many unpaid fines each defaulter has and how many defaulters have unpaid fines for three months, 12 months, two years or perhaps even longer. It would be good to see a detailed analysis of the defaulted fines so we could seriously inform the debate on the success or otherwise of the punitive measures proposed in this bill. That analysis might also inform better recovery measures than the ones proposed in this bill.
To contextualise the measures proposed it would also be useful to know how many fines have been issued for what types of offences, how many have been paid and how much revenue has been received in each of the preceding three years. Debate on the bill would also be enhanced by more information about the resources deployed by the Fines Recovery Unit and some explanation of current practices and why they have not been successful in recovering fines. I will, as we move through this debate, raise one practice which I do not think works and needs to be revised and modernised.
If the problem is one of simply underresourcing the Fines Recovery Unit then the simple answer is to address that issue up front. It would be helpful if the minister could advise the House how many staff the Fines Recovery Unit has at its disposal to develop strategies and recover fines, the value of work outsourced, whether there are any other resource deficits such as IT capability and the unit’s budget generally. I suspect I might have to wait until estimates next year to get some of those answers.
Deliberations on the proposed punitive provisions would also benefit from some explanation of what has been tried so far to recover fines and why it has failed. Does recovery action rely on hard copy and electronic communication, phone calls or personal contact? Are other strategies implemented? A clear question is why the current processes are not working and how they might be improved.
One key issue is how many of the unrecovered fines relate to hardship and incapacity to pay. In this context I draw the minister’s attention to a scheme operating in New South Wales to assist vulnerable people to satisfy their fine debts. Under this scheme Work and Development Orders, or WDOs, allow eligible people to satisfy their debt through unpaid work with approved organisations or by undertaking certain courses of treatment.
The New South Wales model includes financial and other counselling and treatment for drug and alcohol programs, the same service provided by the former SMART Court we had in the Northern Territory. The SMART Court dealt with those with offending behaviour as a result of substance misuse, but regrettably the Attorney-General saw fit to dismantle it a couple of years ago even though it was working quite successfully.
Eligible people under the WDO scheme in New South Wales include those who have a mental illness, an intellectual disability, a cognitive impairment, who might be homeless, experience economic hardship or have a serious addiction to drugs, alcohol or volatile substances. A Work and Development Order can be supported by a registered health practitioner. If a Work and Development Order is approved, all defaulted fines are included on the order and enforcement action is discontinued.
I ask the minister, if he has not already done so, to carefully consider the scheme of Work and Development Orders operating in New South Wales and determine if the relevant measures might be beneficial and efficacious in the Northern Territory context. Work and Development Orders are far more likely to get better outcomes for some individuals and families compared to wheel clamps and very public naming and shaming.
I am sure the Territory’s Aboriginal legal aid services could offer the minister some valuable insights when it comes to alternative arrangements for fines recovery from our most vulnerable citizens.
I now turn to an issue I mentioned earlier about recovering fines in the context of the Territory’s unique geography, demography and social environment. I am not suggesting that all outstanding fines belong to Indigenous Territorians. That may well not be the case, but NAAJA has confirmed it has a number of clients with fines totalling over $10 000. I asked during the briefing about the number of people we are talking about who are fine defaulters of $10 000 or more. I asked if it was more than 50, 100 or more. I was told it was somewhere between 50 and 100.
NAAJA highlighted, apart from confirming it has a number of clients with fines totalling over $10 000, that many of these clients are in entrenched poverty, do not have strong literacy and numeracy skills and do not have the capacity to independently sort out their fines. As we all know, as it has been very topical recently, with shrinking legal aid budgets they have even less chance for support to sort out their fines unless they want to represent themselves in court, which is unlikely and doomed to fail.
Those of us who represent remote electorates, as well as public and private businesses who deal with the bush, know how hard it is to communicate with citizens and clients in remote locations. I come across school teachers who might have the wherewithal to get mail sorted, yet still struggle to have things sent to them in remote locations. If it is difficult for them, imagine how difficult it is for our remote Indigenous residents who live full-time in these places. We have all received letters and communications returned from remote locations.
In the case of Indigenous Territorians there are cultural practices which involve name changes arising from sorry business, where somebody changes names because it was very similar to the name of somebody who has recently passed. It could be a period of several years before that name is again used. Marriage also sees name changes.
For our remote Indigenous Territorians there is mobility that comes with seasonal travel between communities which is the result of a range of factors. Sometimes it is the Darwin Show, but much of the time it is cultural reasons that see people become mobile and therefore not at their – I guess it calls for the usual place of residence.
Not to mention the issue of language barriers and letters which are simply not understood by non-English speakers and other letters which go astray. Letters sent to Nhulunbuy will not be delivered if they are not addressed to a post office box. If they are addressed to a street address, even if it is a current and accurate residential street address in Nhulunbuy, Australia Post will not deliver it. There is no street delivery in Nhulunbuy; it has to be a post office box. Even though I have lived there for 25 years I have all my mail sorted with various institutions now. But I wondered why I was not receiving certain statements and important documents from my bank. It was because they were using my street address and not my post office box, so that mail was being returned to sender. Even though the wonderful people in Nhulunbuy Post Office know me and my post office box, their resourcing is such that they simply return to sender.
These are difficult challenges in essential communications for public and private entities. I am very curious to know what the Fines Recovery Unit spends on mail and what the savings might be if they could find alternative means of communicating with fine defaulters. Perhaps that is a job for the Red Tape Reduction Team. Is the Red Tape Reduction Team adequately resourced to be finding these savings in government? I am not sure; you might have a view on that, minister.
Failure of mail to reach its intended recipient can trigger a chain of what should be avoidable events which can bring about accumulated fines, for all of the reasons I have just listed regarding mobility of people, name changes, or whatever reasons. Let me give you a very real example one of our Caucus members provided as she went in to bat for one of her constituents recently. It is to do with a Darwin woman and her family who, due to serious illness, had to relocate interstate for medical treatment. They were gone for some time and arrived home to discover that because of a missed dog registration requirement, fines had accumulated in the family’s absence and her licence had also been cancelled. There was a double whammy with accumulated fines and she had to renew her licence.
I am sure people would say ‘Well if you are going away somewhere, you need someone to check your mail or get a house sitter so you can avoid all these things’. I am providing one example but it was a very real scenario. Regrettably this case did not meet the circumstances of hardship. I have not seen the guidelines about hardship but I did ask in the briefing I had last week how decisions would be made about hardship and concessions for people. I believe the member for Nelson has received those hardship guidelines. I can only assume the director – or perhaps there is more than one director – will be dealing with hardship cases, literally on a case-by-case basis.
Given that so many transactions in this day and age occur electronically rather than through Australia Post, have we reached a time in government where consideration surely should be given to modernising our communications and how we reach people? We know vehicle registration renewals can now be done online through MVR. It was under my colleague, the member for Barkly, that this process was being worked through and developed. With the change of government it is the CLP which has delivered that initiative which saves people a lot of time and makes payment instantaneous. It will not work for everybody but it works for many Territorians. Let us face it; it is happening in interstate jurisdictions as well.
A sizeable proportion of our community do all their banking online. Although it can be annoying at times, I get an SMS from my banking institution to remind me if I have missed a credit card payment. It is instantaneous, in my hand, and in the busy life I lead with paper everywhere, sometimes these electronic communications are more effective; they are in your face. It is an important reminder that sees you avoid missing payments or perhaps repaying a fine.
In fact, as a disincentive to use the old snail mail, Telstra actually charges a fee if you want a paper bill delivered. I think you pay $2 to have a paper bill delivered. That is all about encouraging people to go online and manage their accounts that way.
Surely an electronic notification system would go some way to adults who, for whatever reason, miss the mail or choose to receive these notifications for a host of reasons?
The member for Barkly is perhaps going to talk more specifically about the challenges of remote electorates and how there is a cohort of people in remote locations and from non-English backgrounds who would find an electronic system challenging. Maybe not. At the same time, I see in many communities there is an investment in building people’s computer literacy, particularly associated with financial literacy to be able to utilise these tools that are secure, efficient and allow payment. In my view and the view of my opposition colleagues – I am not speaking for the Independents; they will make their own contribution to this debate and make clear their own position – it would be a pity if these challenges were to give rise to wheel clamping and naming and shaming when the real challenge is effective communication.
I note from the follow-up to questions I had from the briefing in the minister’s office about the success or otherwise of naming and shaming provisions in other jurisdictions, that they have returned to seeing fines paid. That is all up for debate but that principle of naming and shaming simply does not align with Labor values.
I should also add that I contacted the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner last week because there is a consequential amendment to the Anti-Discrimination Act as a result of this. There was a commendation that the government had been thinking laterally enough to consider that a provision was needed within the Anti-Discrimination Act to ensure it would not be unlawfully discriminating against anybody who had their name placed on a naming and shaming website. I did not ask the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner her view on naming and shaming and its merits or otherwise, but there was acknowledgement that the consequential amendment is a positive one and the government was thinking laterally about this.
We notified the Attorney-General and the government last night through our Whip to say we would not be supporting this bill for all the matters I have outlined here. But in the interest of developing effective solutions to recovering outstanding fines, I am interested to hear from the minister if he is able to provide the information I have requested about the backlog of fines and the operations of the Fines Recovery Unit. Are they adequately resourced? What do we know about the backlog of fines? How many people have moved interstate?
He might also consider the merits of a scheme for Work and Development Orders for fine defaulters along the lines of the one operating in New South Wales. I saw him nodding as I talked about people from disadvantaged backgrounds, including some of NAAJA’s clients, being on that list of fine defaulters of $10 000 or more.
I am also be keen to know what process will be in place to advise the community of the changes and these new punitive measures government is proposing to introduce. At the briefing we talked about the hierarchy of notifications and the escalation of those measures that will see you arrive at a point where your wheel may be clamped or you will find yourself on a name-and-shame website.
Mr Deputy Speaker, that is really all I have to say on the bill. I believe the member for Barkly will speak. I am interested to hear what other members of the House, including our Independents, have to say.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, I only have a few comments to make on this legislation. I thank the minister and the staff from the department who provided a briefing. I have since put a list of questions through to the minister’s office and received some replies. I will pass comment and ask some questions.
Yes, I acknowledge this is in other jurisdictions. I looked at Western Australia in particular. Whilst they are a long way over in the west they tend to be ahead of the game when it comes to this kind of legislation.
I acknowledge the hierarchy of sanctions but the question up front is how has it become $10 000 for 666 people? That is an enormous number of parking fines and other types of fines such as speeding fines …
Mr Elferink: They just screw them up and throw them on the floor.
Ms PURICK: I acknowledge the interjection from the minister, but why was there not some kind of demand? Perhaps there have been demands. Why has something like this not happened before?
Where did the government look to draw from other legislation? Which state did they find has the best model legislation? I thought Western Australia was pretty good, but I did not look at Tasmania or South Australia.
Yes, there are written demands for money which can be thrown in the bin. Many people probably do that. To suspend the driver’s licence may be difficult in the Territory because many people drive unlicensed, as we well know. Presuming they do not have a driver’s licence then they will move to the car. I am not sure as many cars in the Northern Territory are not registered; mostly they are, but many are not as you read about unlicensed people and unregistered cars in the paper every day.
You then move to the clamping. I asked the minister’s office what kind of clamping would be used. It would go around the chassis and cannot be taken off the wheel. However, if you try to take the clamp off you would be interfering and could be fined for that. I thank the minister for providing information on the kind of clamp. I am interested to know why the minister has chosen that clamp, because there are other clamps around Australia which are used for securing wheels of any moving vehicle.
There are 10 clamps so that is probably five for Darwin and five for Palmerston. There is an arrangement with Darwin city council but do you have an arrangement with the Palmerston city council, given you will be rolling this out in Palmerston? Do you have the same arrangement with Palmerston city council? If so, is that a written arrangement, a memorandum of understanding or a contract?
You state there are 666 individuals and body corporates which owe over $10 000. Are all those people still in the Territory? Will you be chasing people who may have left the Territory?
In regard to the clamping, you say you will use Scorpion Wheel Clamps. How did you arrive at those clamps because there are many others on the market? At the briefing I questioned who would be removing or putting on the clamps and what kind of qualifications or training they would have. That has been answered.
‘Mobilise an officer’ can be a bailiff, a Director of the Fines Recovery Unit, Deputy Director or another person authorised by the Director of the Fines Recovery Unit, and that is pretty fair. I still have concerns that it does not matter who these people are, if they go to a premises or to a car to put a clamp on it and the owner of the car is there and is six feet four inches, they will take exception to it …
Mr Wood: And they live in the rural area.
Ms PURICK: And they live in the rural area, potentially. It is just Palmerston. Oh, that is right; their car could be parked in town …
Mr Wood: The rural area is exempt.
Ms PURICK: The rural area is exempt and that is good. Leave it that way because we are law-abiding citizens there.
Western Australia has this outsourced to a security firm, and the people who apply the clamps are security officers with security officer training. I am concerned about the reaction from an individual. If they are not paying their fines, which are up to $10 000, clearly they have complete disregard for the law. If a bailiff comes along and says, ‘I am going to clamp your vehicle’, I have concerns there might be an altercation. Perhaps you might have to trial it, which is what you are doing. But you will run into issues with some people in our community.
Assuming you have gone through all the sanctions and are now up to the clamping stage in the streets around Darwin and Palmerston, there is also the prospect they can be clamped in private residences. I have serious concerns about that. I understand they have a right of entry. I do not want to see a banana freckle campaign all over again. I have spoken to outside sources to get advice on this. I spoke to the Law Society, some people in the tow truck industry and people of that nature. The notes from the minister’s office say, ‘It is envisaged, similar to other jurisdictions, that wheel clamping will be extended to defaulters’ residences in the early hours of the morning or in the evening when they are most likely to be at home’. You will go to a person’s property at 2 am and put a clamp on their vehicle and not expect a reaction? Is that because you will enter the property, knock on their gate, rattle the gate, ring them and say, ‘Come out, we want to put a clamp on your vehicle’. That will not go down well either.
Mr McCarthy: After they clamp the Rottweiler.
Ms PURICK: After they clamp the Rottweiler. Learn from the banana freckle campaign with the lock-the-gate campaign and the angst and pushback from residents when officers tried to enter properties. I want clarified exactly the right of the bailiff/Director of the Fines Recovery Unit to enter a property at 2 am to put a clamp on a vehicle of someone you believe owes $10 000, and what is the privacy that may well have been breached because it concerns me. If someone came onto my property at 2 am because I owed $10 000 there would not be a warm reception, that is for sure. I am sure out of those 666 people quite a few of them that are very …
Mr Wood: That dog will protect you.
Ms PURICK: One of the five dogs that are meant to protect me.
I want to get some clarification about that please, minister. All of my other questions have been asked about the demographics and people taking clamps off.
I was concerned about insurance if damage was done to the vehicle. If it is shown that the officer putting the clamp on has been negligent then, yes, there can be a claim against the government. I did not want that to happen, that they are asked to take it out against insurance. Having said that, if the car is not registered and they are not licensed there would not be any insurance anyway. I wanted to clarify protection of people with slightly more expensive cars than the rest of us.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I only have a few points as well.
I am hopefully correct that you said we have in excess of $58m in fines and the new enforcement measures will be aimed at those high-end defaulters owing $10 000 or more. These are not accurate figures because I do not know how much above $10 000 is owed, but if you have 666 people who each owe $10 000 my calculation is that will get you $6.6m, which leaves you $52m or $51m ...
Mr Elferink: Some of them are restitution orders worth several hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Mr WOOD: Maybe it is worth explaining that because of the maths.
What is recoverable? Have you done an assessment? It hits the headlines that government is owed $58m. Has there been an analysis of what you have a reasonable chance of recovering? Councils wipe off debt; it gets to a point where it is not worth worrying about.
I also had concerns about going onto a property. I also had a briefing from the Law Society; they were raising that issue as well. I am interested to hear the response. The member for Goyder summed it up pretty well.
There is mention of an alternative way of immobilising a vehicle. I am interested to know what that technique is. Do you take out the battery? I am interested to know what the alternative way of immobilising a vehicle is.
Some of these questions have come up later; I had a briefing. A defaulter who lives in Darwin parks his car at East Arm. Can you clamp the car at East Arm? It does not belong to the Darwin city council or to Palmerston council. If you know the car is parked there, can you immobilise it in another municipality?
The other issue might be easily solved. It has come up in discussions that someone is parking on land in Cavenagh Street that belongs to the Darwin city council and not paying their fines. What gives the right to demobilise a vehicle and leave it on their property? Is there anything that technically needs to be done to allow that to happen on a road that does not belong to the government? I want to make sure you are acting within the powers you can use on a local government’s road. It is only a technical question.
This is fairly minor. I need to give you the clauses because if you can answer these now I will not go to committee stage. Sections 66H and 66J – one is the moving of an immobilised vehicle and the other one is interference with immobilisation. I am not sure why they are not the same thing. If you move it you have interfered with it, so why is it not just one clause? You are still penalised 100 penalty units. Is it still an offence? When I was reading it, I thought there did not seem to be much difference between one and the other.
Mr Elferink: A syllogism.
Mr WOOD: I am glad you said that, minister. I must use that in Scrabble one day. I cannot spell it.
Mr Elferink: All kookaburras are birds but not all birds are kookaburras.
Mr WOOD: That was just a small matter. Minister, thank you for giving me the hardship guidelines, which I believe were important …
Ms Walker: He did not give them to me.
Mr WOOD: I told you I would loan them to you, member for Nhulunbuy.
It talks about people coming under Centrelink, etcetera. That is good because you are dealing with people who perhaps cannot afford it. But further down it said they have been assessed by the FRU as suffering hardship so a financial examination will be used to determine this – any defaulters who are listed with utility suppliers, such as electricity providers, as hardship clients. It also said defaulters listed as Indigenous and living in remote communities.
As much as I understand what you are getting at, I get a little concerned that the race of the person is relevant in this case because you are dealing with people who are relying on Centrelink. I would prefer that you just left it as those who are suffering hardship for whatever cause.
Mr Elferink: I am happy to amend that.
Mr WOOD: I believe that, to some extent, our social service system should be based not on what colour you are but what your circumstances are. It looked a bit funny saying, ‘the defaulters listed as Indigenous living in remote communities’. There might be a poor non-Indigenous bloke living in a remote community who misses out. It is covered by the Centrelink requirements and the other sections of the hardship guidelines.
I had a laugh when it said, ‘Deceased defaulters are excluded and their debts are to be written off’. Well, I am pleased to know that. I can see that as an extremely good part of the …
Mr Elferink: There are two things in life that are certain.
Mr WOOD: That is right. I can only presume you are not going to then chase up someone else for the deceased defaulter’s debts.
Mr Elferink: No.
Mr WOOD: That is all right. I thought that was worth checking.
Many of the comments made are important. We were given some alternatives. The Law Society mentioned other states have some more carrot approaches to this, rather than stick approaches. That was good.
It would also be good to let us know how effective this legislation has been after it has been operating for a while. My understanding is that this has been effective in Western Australia. Some figures were given to me which show that when this was introduced the amount of debt reduced substantially.
The key in this for me is whilst it is important that people pay their fines, it is a two-way street. People have a responsibility to pay their fines and I do not have any sympathy for people who deliberately avoid paying them. Obviously on the other side of the equation there are some people who are in circumstances where they cannot pay the fines and might not have even known they had been fined. The balance is to ensure people in hardship for whatever circumstances – those circumstances obviously are part of the hardship guidelines – are treated fairly as well. That does not mean the government should be excessively lenient on people who are deliberately avoiding paying fines.
I am interested to know how long it would take before you put someone in gaol and if you think you would get to that stage.
Mr Elferink: Yes.
Mr WOOD: If you got to that stage, would they definitely be sentenced to a job, so they could pay their fine off by working from gaol?
Mr Elferink: It depends on their classification.
Mr WOOD: Okay. Hopefully their classification is fairly open if it is only parking fines over the last six years.
Mr Elferink: I hope so too.
Mr WOOD: That is right. I just thought I would raise a few of those points.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the proof will be in the pudding. If this works, we will see a reduction in the debt. If it does not, then we will probably be asking questions as to why.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister and the department the minister represents for providing the information about this bill.
That information was provided to the opposition spokesperson who did the research and the work around that. Our opposition spokesperson in this case, the member for Nhulunbuy, then translated that bill and important information to the Labor Caucus. The Labor Caucus then debated that bill and formed a position. That position then was communicated to the opposition Whip who then communicated with the block of Independents in the House. Then it was brought to the House to debate.
This process represents a lot of work and should be taken on board by the government as the machinations of minority government, which stand in stark contrast to the way the CLP government has been governing the Northern Territory in the past. It is a good and thorough process. Many people are active.
The Labor opposition has decided not to support this bill. I am quite surprised about the uncharacteristic clumsiness of the bill. It is uncharacteristic of the Attorney-General, one of the hardest-working members on the government side, to be presenting legislation that is clumsy. It will be trialled in a limited urban area and has major issues associated with it that have been raised by the members for Nhulunbuy, Goyder and Nelson and now me, as I will add to the debate.
When the member for Port Darwin was in opposition and I had the privilege of being a minister, I studied the job very closely and thoroughly, including the opposition members. The member for Port Darwin at the time was a very aggressive performer, trained in law. I learnt a lot about legislative instruments and the importance of the position of a member of parliament making laws. That is why I am quite surprised the member for Port Darwin is trying to guide passage of very clumsy legislation through this House that is full of holes and generating more questions than it answers.
The intention is honourable; there is no doubt about that. It is the recovery of significant fines and having offenders pay their dues. Nobody is disputing that. The statistics alone represent quite a media headline and have been used, in this case, to try to generate support.
However, the procedure to recover those funds has to be fair and equitable. It has to represent the principles of natural justice and relate to the Territory and all Territorians. I do not see a trial in the greater Darwin area as being relevant with the reality of a very highly mobile Territory population that represents urban, regional and remote area constituents.
When the member for Nhulunbuy was briefing the Caucus there was very good discussion and debate. I remember when we were discussing the communication systems and strategies. Each member of the Labor opposition provided their advice about what would work, the issues in relation to their own electorates and personal anecdotes. I provided an anecdote of when I first stood for parliament.
I entered my first political campaign to be elected to the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory and funded a mail-out of 3000 letters to the electorate of Barkly at considerable cost. To my astonishment, 1900 were returned to sender. Just over 3000 were sent and 1900 came back. Whilst I value Australia Post and have conducted school business out of the mail bag for many years, I was quite astounded how inefficient that system which was to communicate with constituents in the Barkly.
I brought that to this debate as it represents one of the clumsy elements of this proposed legislation in communicating with fine defaulters through existing systems. The member for Nhulunbuy, as a good Labor opposition member, presented clear alternatives and talked about using technology and associated initiatives to communicate the message.
I take the member for Port Darwin to one very important point: incarceration rates of Indigenous people in the Northern Territory are above the national average per head of population. They are unacceptable. They are causing no end of grief, trauma and stress within our community, which leads to associated knock-on effects of offending behaviour and the continuous cycle of unacceptable recidivism and returning to prison.
We need to go to the point of how we can address this. That relates to the member for Nhulunbuy’s very strong point in this debate about legislation based on a purely punitive strategy to address what is essentially an honourable agenda.
When I relate this to the constituency I represent there are very vulnerable people. I agree with the member for Nelson; I define vulnerability around low socioeconomics. Low socioeconomics with poor educational standards lead to victims of the system so punitive approaches cast the net and immediately catch those vulnerable constituents. Our statistics in Northern Territory corrections represent that. We are being looked at nationally and internationally, and we need government to continue to explore new ways of doing business. The member for Nhulunbuy presented some interesting ways to tackle this problem.
The punitive approach starts with wheel clamping. A precursor to that is a name and shame. Then there is the physical attribute of going after a personal possession such as a motor vehicle and clamping that, whether it be in a public place or a private residence. Members have already spoken about the constraints around that type of legislative approach and punitive action.
In the Labor opposition’s debate, I reminded our members of Labor policy when we were faced with the scourge of drink-driving and were developing policy around that. When I was introducing legislation for implementation of alcohol ignition locks, I remember the member for Port Darwin, in opposition, aggressively attacked me about our policy position – fair enough – with, ‘We will take vehicles and crush them’. We had a very separate point of view. We were at complete opposite ends of the spectrum in policy and how we would deliver the outcome of reducing drink-drivers.
I was focused on Labor’s policy of alcohol ignition locks because I looked at it holistically. The vehicle was not just the personal possession of the drink-driver, it represented the livelihood of families and family groups, and in the constituencies I represent often extended family groups. It would not be a good outcome to take the vehicle and crush it because of the serious offending behaviour of a constituent who drinks to excess and drives a motor vehicle. It would create greater issues.
In our Labor Caucus debate, I drew a parallel with a tradesperson in the rural area, a hard-working Territorian who depends on a vehicle not only to get to work and back, but also to carry tools or for use as part as their business. For that person to be named and shamed and have the vehicle immobilised and go through the processes – I have repeatedly said recovery of fines that are payable to the state are honourable – could end up in serious consequences such as a loss of job or a shaming within the family, with the consequential results of domestic violence, breakdown in the family, separations, all of these consequential outcomes that relate to one agenda of punitive design. That is why we are not supporting this legislation and why we say it is a clumsy instrument which needs to be refined before it has passed through this House.
The element of hardship crosses many boundaries in the Northern Territory and needs to be accounted for. The member for Nhulunbuy has done research and talked to the Labor Caucus about initiatives in SMART Court operations. As a previous government member having the privilege of working with the department of Justice, I learnt a lot about that initiative. The member for Nhulunbuy has shown us other jurisdictions. When I think of the constituents I represent who are vulnerable, from a low socioeconomic base with low educational levels and are faced with the justice system and incur a fine, surely before they leave the courthouse is the point of intervention. Surely that is the point where we make the arrangements about how that fine will be paid and the offending behaviour repatriated so we set that offender on a course of success, not failure?
I will play a bit of politics in this debate, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I know you love that. It relates to the member for Greatorex in some respects, because in the last couple of Country Liberal Party appropriations we have seen over $1m gifted to golf clubs in Alice Springs and Katherine. I have nothing against the game of golf, but that is $1m. In the Barkly, $1m probably goes five times further than it does in Darwin; it is worth so much more there. If we have $1m in our pocket, let us say we reprioritise this agenda and look at a SMART Court operation that would set the offender on a course for success, which essentially could repatriate $58m to the government coffers.
Let us draw a line in the sand and say we will go down this new road as opposed to single-item, one-agenda, tough-on-crime, punitive legislation which will continue to overflow the prisons, name and shame family members and cause residual effects of unemployment and all those associated consequential and dysfunctional elements of our community.
The SMART Court idea can be looked at. I encourage the minister to take this legislation back and start that process. The $1m has already been appropriated to the golf clubs of Katherine and Alice Springs, God love them, but maybe there is another $1m in the coffers somewhere. Maybe the TIO fund is still rattling if it has not been expended already. Let us look across the board at a more creative, innovative justice space, as opposed to this continual punitive approach that fuels the one-line media headline, ‘Tough on crime’. There are alternatives and we, as an opposition, are providing those alternatives.
I do not see this legislation progressing past Darwin and Palmerston, so it seems to be rather chaotic to even trial it there when it will not apply to the Northern Territory holistically. It will not apply in regional and remote areas because it will be challenged every step of the way. A simple issue like non-payment of fines, which escalates into a name-and-shame campaign and the immobilisation of a vehicle will substantially increase the risk of further offending.
The member for Goyder touched on the rural area and some of the great characteristics of Territorians, which is something I celebrate. I am always fascinated with Territorians and the diversity we have in the Territory. In the back blocks of the Barkly and the remote country that I travel and represent, there are constituents who will challenge the system every step of the way. When the member for Goyder talked about entering a person’s property, I talked about clamping the Rottweiler, then the contractor clamping the vehicle.
It would be an amazing case study in the Barkly to see somebody going to a regional area or remote community and clamping vehicles because it would immediately lead to an escalation in further offending. That would lead to further judicial intervention which would relate to further fines, essentially, as it has created more problems than it solved and constituents would end up in gaol. Then we would have those residual effects that we know happen.
Minister, you have an opportunity to get back in the game. As I said, I am extremely surprised that you are backing this clumsy legislation. It is not characteristic of you. As the Attorney-General, I thought you would have so many more resources at your fingertips to go back to the drawing broad and to try to achieve a more stable pathway to reclaiming $58m in unpaid fines while bringing the community with you, not alienating it, especially the low socioeconomic element of our constituency.
It is good to debate in this House and it has been a very interesting day because the game has changed. I will qualify that statement again; it is not a game. The business of this parliament has changed. The day of those occasional warm moments when we hear pleas from the government for a collegial, bipartisan approach to governing the Northern Territory has arrived by default. This is an example of how we will need to be more collegial and work together.
The member for Blain made a flippant comment and interjected with, ‘Get a briefing’. The concept of getting a briefing now takes on a new level of meaning, in my opinion. Member for Blain, thank you for that interjection because it is a new level in this House when you have a minority government. I speak from experience. I had the privilege of being in a minority government for four years. We worked very hard to make it a success and it was a success. This is now seen more and more as a national experience. It looks like we are going to see more of this concept.
Opposition members do not support this legislation. It is great to hear the Independents debating this. I look forward to the minister’s reply. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Barkly. Once again demonstrating you are never afraid to count your chickens before they hatch. I am sure the Attorney-General will be very keen to respond to that.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I agree with the member for Barkly in one important way. Yes, the flavour of the room has changed; there is no doubt about it. But that also imposes upon members a responsibility. This is a good example of what that responsibility should be. Because there is essentially a power shift in this Chamber as a result of minority government, it means that if I want to get legislation through this House, I have to start negotiating with the Independents. I am happy to do that. I have signalled that for a long time. In fact, I have always made it a point to offer briefings. Rarely has a bill come before this House that has not already been widely consulted on, as this one has been.
The point is that now I am going to call on the Independents who want to raise the level of this place. The member for Nelson, in particular, is fine. Every time I ring him and try to tell him there is information coming his way, he always picks up the phone. There are other Independents who have not answered my calls. We have offered briefings, sent e-mails, etcetera. It is important. I call upon those Independents that if they want to enjoy their newfound muscle, then they should do so responsibly and carefully.
On a couple of occasions today we have seen the suspension of standing orders for what I consider reasons that do not require it, but there you go! It is what it is and everybody has their way. But now the responsibility is on individual members in this House to perform better than they ever have.
One of the things that became apparent today is that springing surprises and traps leads to confusing outcomes. Two motions were brought forward and both of them were amended on the floor because they needed to be. Do you know what my concern is? Because the amendments were done on the fly, whilst our intent was clear here today, they may not be sufficient to cover the full meaning of those amendments going forward. My advice to members is that if they want to change standing orders and those sorts of things, in the first instance make overtures to all members before bringing something into the House, for the sake of caution. Anyway, that is by the by; those are just some observations.
I listened very carefully to the Labor members opposite and I get it. I suspect this is more about testing the numbers on the piece of legislation than the legislation itself. The first indication we received on our side of the House that it would not be supported was by notification last night by the member for Nightcliff. I am grateful to her for her notification in a somewhat timely fashion. However, having made that observation, we will press on.
Regarding communication with the people who have outstanding fines, I put this into a more practical domain so people get what goes on. There is a class of people who just do not care. They turn up to their car and there is a little fine under their windscreen wiper. They pull out the fine, screw it up, throw it on the floor or into their car, whatever, and have no intention of paying it. The Fines Recovery Unit has a number of steps available to it, which include communication. I heard the members opposite saying, ‘You have to communicate’, but I am not quite sure what you can do beyond registered post and those sorts of things. There is a reason we make sure at a legislative level that registered post is considered service, because it is a vehicle of service. It is one of the many vehicles of service under the Service and Execution of Process Act, which is a legislative instrument that tells you how you deliver papers on other people. I do not think the Service and Execution of Process Act extends to electronic service for a number of reasons. People who receive these letters – and by and large they do receive the letters – screw up the letters and are indifferent to them as to the fines themselves.
A little history here. One of my former functions in the police force was with a section called Warrants and Inquiries. Our section was the only profit-making section in the police force. It was our job to drive around, particularly Darwin – where I was attached was not Darwin – with what were called blue sheets. Blue sheets were a computer printout of a warrant. We would knock on somebody’s door and say, ‘Hello? Are you Mr Jones?’, ‘Yes, I am Mr Jones.’ ‘Are you Mr Jones, date of birth, such and such?’, ‘Yes, I am Mr Jones, date of birth, such and such.’ ‘You have $1000 worth of outstanding fines, you are under arrest’. ‘But, but, but …’ ‘No, you are under arrest, you are with us.’
Those warrants were called warrants of commitment. There are several types of warrants: warrants of apprehension, warrants where summons were disobeyed, means warrants and, for the purpose of this one, a warrant of commitment. A warrant of commitment committed you to serve time and cut out your fines. The way that was done was you were placed into the custody of the police officer. That was day one. If you were arrested at 11 pm, you had already cut out your first day. Let us say you had a $300 fine; you cut out the fine at a rate of $100 a day. So you did all the second day and then part of the third day and that was considered your three days done and you were released from either the police cells or the prison if it was a longer warrant of commitment.
The former Labor government said locking all these people up was all a bit harsh so they created the Fines Recovery Unit. The process was structured around the expectation that you could recover fines with limited punitive action. You were encouraged to do things like seek community work orders and those things.
I, and government, still encourage people with outstanding fines to contact the Fines Recovery Unit and come to an arrangement. We understand you may not be able to pay off your fines; we get that. We will not throw you in gaol. If you are standing in front of us saying, ‘Yes, I want to sort it out’, then we will take you on good faith and sort it out. You could do a work program or whatever else. Fines and work programs are cut out at a different rate to warrants of commitment. The old warrant of commitment was not as high as we currently do through the work program. The community service enables you to cut out the fines more quickly than a warrant of commitment. However, eventually if you do not turn up to your work program the warrant of commitment is issued, so ultimately someone arrests you.
The problem with that process is the point of arrest had become so remote that those people who would not pay their fines as a matter of course – I should know, I collect a few along the way, but I am always anxious to pay them off quickly lest the newspaper find out as much as anything else. The fact is that I will pay off my fines, and most reasonable Territorians will pay off their fines for their miscreant behaviour.
For the class of people who do not want to do community service and are utterly indifferent to paying, etcetera, the option is ultimately arrest. This proposes a couple of things which arose from some announcements I made last year. Last year we started to identify some problems and to say we were going after people with large outstanding fines. There are 666 people with fines over $10 000. There were some people last year, when we started announcing we are going after them, who had many tens of thousands of dollars outstanding. There was one instance where somebody had nearly $0.5m of outstanding fines, but it turned out that was more in the nature of outstanding restitution.
The point is we still want people to come forward. We do not want to name and shame people or necessarily clamp their wheels. But we need some sanction, some response, for somebody who flatly refuses to pay their fines. By the time they have racked up $10 000 worth of fines and the subsequent increases because of the system that surrounds it, we can pretty safely assume they do not care. What bothers me is that many of the people on the list are what you and I would call senior public servants.
Many of these fines come from normal citizens who live in the northern suburbs of Darwin, Alice Springs or Palmerston. Yes, there are Aboriginal people with fines and we encourage them, like everybody else, to deal with them. But there is a class of people who do not care. As a consequence we decided to do something about it.
One of those things is the publication of the top fine defaulters on a website. We are doing that because we want to embarrass people. If you are that class of person who has a good job, etcetera, and has over $10 000 worth of fines, if you are not ashamed by your failure to conduct yourself properly we will place you into the public domain so people can see who you are, because it is your debt that you must pay to the community in which you live. The second component is the immobilisation of vehicles used by fine defaulters who continue to evade the Fines Recovery Unit.
It must be immensely more preferable to arrest a thing than a person. If you arrest a person and place them into custody that means you can go into their house. Under the old warrant of commitment we had the right to go into people’s homes, drag them out and take them down to the local ATM so they could scratch some money out of it or they would end up in the cells if they said they had no money.
We are not talking about going into people’s homes. In fact, this does not enable you to go into people’s homes or garages. We cannot rip open the person’s front or garage door, and we cannot go into their best mate’s front yard either unless we have their permission. We can at least go into your property in the same way that a bailiff can go into your property and immobilise the vehicle. So the car is under arrest, not a human being. That, in my opinion, is a preferable approach.
If the scale of sanctions is what the Labor Party is concerned about, the scale we are talking about is lower than the existing sanction of the old warrant of commitment, which still sits at the other end of the process.
The other thing is to extend the cessation of business orders to individuals in order to provide the Motor Vehicle Registrar with the power to refuse to perform any functions in relation to fine defaulters. This has been around for a long time. This was part of the original fine defaulting process. The fact is we want to extend the cessation of business orders to individuals in order to provide it to the Motor Vehicle Registry. The means we can say to people, ‘You have a duty to pay your fines, otherwise you will not get your licence’. That, in my opinion, is entirely proper.
I also pick up on what the member for Nelson said in relation to his concern about the hardship guidelines. The final dot point on the page is:
- Fine defaulters listed as Indigenous and living in remote communities.
That is based on a presumption and it is a risk of stereotyping. I understand why the presumption is there. I tell the member for Nelson now that I am happy to remove that and say that the defaulter has some sort of financial hardship. Once again, if you are a defaulter with financial hardship, go and do community work. If you are in a remote community, so much the better. It is not like you cannot find a job to do in a remote community.
Those are some of the options and, as whispered in from the adviser’s box, there is also the time to pay arrangements, so we will give that one a plug as well.
To cut a long story short, this is not radical; it is a system by which we can recover fines from the people of the Northern Territory. The last time I fired a shot across people’s bows we recovered several hundred thousand dollars’ worth of outstanding fines simply by threatening people with sanctions. However, the point is a large slice of those fines are still not paid.
I thank one of the Independents for their support in relation to the matter, and I look forward to this operating in the Northern Territory.
I will finish by saying one important thing: I am concerned that the Labor Party is prepared to let fine defaulters go and make excuses for people to enable them to not have any responsibility for the fines they rack up. That concerns me because there seems to be a growing trend in this jurisdiction, especially when we talk about Aboriginal people, that we make excuses for them, that in some way or another they should enjoy some sort of benefit under the law on the basis of their Indigeneity. I, as the Attorney-General and as a good-minded Liberal, cannot countenance such a world view. All Territorians should be treated equally under the law, and for that reason I glower at the suggestion it should be otherwise.
Mr Deputy Speaker, having made those observations, I thank honourable members for their contributions.
The Assembly divided:
- Ayes 13 Noes 8
Mr Barrett Ms Fyles
Mr Chandler Mr Gunner
Mr Conlan Ms Lawrie
Mr Elferink Mr McCarthy
Mrs Finocchiaro Ms Manison
Mr Giles Ms Moss
Mr Higgins Mr Vowles
Mr Kurrupuwu Ms Walker
Mrs Price
Ms Purick
Mr Styles
Mr Westra van Holthe
Mr Wood
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice) (by leave): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
TABLED PAPERS
Remuneration Tribunal Determination
Remuneration Tribunal Determination
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Mr Deputy Speaker, earlier this year this parliament passed legislation for the Remuneration Tribunal to be separated from the connection to politicians’ pay and become a truly independent tribunal.
Over the last several months the tribunal has been working with members of parliament and a range of stakeholders in identifying a new determination.
The determination has now been brought forward to the parliament. I table this determination. The determination is a matter for the parliament, not for government.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later date.
Leave granted.
Standing Orders Committee Report
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I table the report of the Standing Orders Committee and the proposed standing orders.
MOTION
Print Paper – Standing Orders
Committee Report
Print Paper – Standing Orders
Committee Report
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the report be printed.
Motion agreed to; paper printed.
MOTION
Adopt Report – Standing Orders
Adopt Report – Standing Orders
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the report be adopted.
The report I table today is a large document – a tome indeed – which contains two important annexures. Annexure A is the new standing orders, the subject of the sole recommendation of the report. Annexure B is a contextual document which allows all members of the Assembly to examine the policy discussion undertaken by the committee during the eighth to the eleventh meetings held during the Twelfth Assembly. I lay this report on the table.
The Clerk will distribute a hard copy of the new standing orders to all members and the entire report will be made immediately available electronically in your e-mail boxes. This reflects the Assembly’s stated intention of moving towards electronic tabling as technology improves and we get used to reading off devices. It also saves members from receiving a 500-page report in hard copy.
During the Twelfth Assembly the Standing Orders Committee has been busy working closely with the Clerk to review and overhaul the standing orders, which were last substantially reviewed in 1985.
On the tabling of the report on Thursday 6 June 1985, the Chair of the Standing Orders Committee, the then member for the Division of Flynn, Mr Ray Harahan, said the Clerk had provided a comprehensive and voluminous report for the committee’s consideration. Similarly, our Clerk and his predecessor have undertaken comprehensive analyses over the last three years and the results are in the final report that members are seeing today.
I emphasise that members are not seeing this material for the first time. There has been a round of consultation with all members which aimed to ensure a modern and efficient standing orders that not only comply with necessary law but the practical day-to-day requirements as members. Indeed this document I table today is in truth already redundant because we have amended it today.
I will now provide a brief summary of the processes which brought us where we are today. At the second meeting of the Standing Orders Committee for the Twelfth Assembly which was held on 29 November 2012, the committee agreed to consider options for proposed amendments to the standing orders. At the fourth meeting, which the committee held on 28 March 2013, the then secretary, the former Clerk, provided a status report on the review of the standing orders, advising that after the first draft a review of the standing orders had been undertaken and the committee had agreed that a report of progress would be provided at the following meeting.
At the fifth meeting of the committee held on 28 August 2013, the secretary, the present Clerk, briefed the committee on a paper prepared about the proposed options for reviewing the standing orders. The committee agreed to ongoing consideration of redrafts of the standing orders with progress reports at forthcoming meetings.
At the sixth meeting of the committee, held on 27 November 2013, the committee considered a paper prepared by the secretary on the review of the standing orders, which included a proposed rearrangement of the chapters, some proposed deletions and the first 50 proposed standing orders for consideration by the Standing Orders Committee. The committee accepted the proposal that this process was an opportunity to modernise the wording and clarifying the language used to make standing orders more user friendly.
The draft paper proposed that the standing orders be grouped differently so that a new Part 1 contains standing orders for everyday procedural guidance and Part 2 contains those standing orders relating to the first sittings of the Assembly after an election, officers of the Assembly and the committees. This was agreed to and is in the final draft.
The committee then determined to appoint an informal subcommittee to work closely with the secretary to consider reforms in detail. The subcommittee was comprised of the members for Daly and Fannie Bay, and the committee thanks them for their detailed work.
The committee convened on 24 February 2014 and again on 14 May 2014 to consider the proposed new structure and text in detail. The subcommittee, on both occasions, considered draft recommendations and endorsed the content of the consideration of the Standing Orders Committee at its seventh and eight meetings.
At the seventh meeting of the committee, held on 26 March 2014, the committee resolved to consider the proposed standing orders in detail and determined that those not discussed in detail that day would be allowed to stand for further consultation.
At the eighth meeting the committee, held on 27 August 2014, the committee noted that the secretary had produced a further draft proposed standing orders document and determined that the document would be circulated to all parliamentary members. The committee secretary would be tasked to brief parliamentary members at parliamentary party meetings. The Standing Orders Cubcommittee would then discuss feedback received by members, and the Standing Orders Committee would consider all draft proposed standing orders at its next meeting. The committee further determined to consolidate a number of sessional orders into standing orders.
At the ninth meeting of the committee, held on 25 February 2015, the secretary provided the committee with a copy of the new standing orders with substantial changes to the standing orders highlighted in red text to alert members of the changes. The secretary advised that briefings on the draft standing orders had been offered to all members, and by that date had been provided to the member for Arnhem and all opposition members.
The committee noted that the review of the standing orders includes rewritten text and some innovations and deletions, and an opportunity for more innovative processes such as streamlining or deleting the Committee of the Whole. The opposition members of the committee advised they would consider the proposed new standing orders again at their party Caucus meeting in March. The committee agreed that the secretary would prepare a further report with recommended changes to standing orders and the committee would consider the next meeting ahead of tabling the report to the Assembly.
At the tenth meeting of the committee, on 29 April 2015, the committee considered a draft proposal to replace the giving of notice with the presentation of a bill separate from the second reading and, after the discussion, resolved to retain the existing procedure for inclusion in the new draft standing orders. This is an example where the changes were considered but not progressed to further development.
The committee endorsed the proposed standing orders as circulated in the meeting subject to reverting to the existing notice provisions for the bill, and then determined to circulate the draft to members for further feedback to be considered at the meeting in June 2015.
At the eleventh meeting, held on 17 June 2015, the committee noted there had been no further submissions or feedback by members during the final consultation period, and the committee agreed that the proposed new standing orders be tabled in a report to the Assembly during the August sittings, which brings us here today.
The committee proposes reducing the number of standing orders from 306 to 255. To achieve this a number of deletions have been agreed by the committee. In addition to the deletions, a number of existing sessional orders are now included as standing orders after being in use over many Assemblies. Examples of significant changes include the reordering of chapters and the abolition of the Committee of the Whole to be replaced with consideration in detail.
This approach will permit flexibility for the Speaker or Deputy Speaker to convene this aspect of the debate with a free-flowing discussion on clauses of the bill where the Assembly feels it is warranted, which is what happens in practice anyhow. The Speaker or Deputy Speaker will usually preside in the Chair and may convene the sittings from the table between the Clerks. This practice is now common in other jurisdictions and removes some of the mysteries of the process for the viewing public. There is no need to remove the Mace or for reporting back.
Annexure B of this report contains noted standing orders which provide policy analysis of the change compared with the existing soon-to-be-replaced redundant standing order. That document provides the rationale for rescissions made by the committee which are recommended for adoption of the final Standing Orders Committee contained in Annexure A.
There is one recommendation which the Assembly is asked to adopt, and that is to agree to the new standing order at Annexure A of the report, and that they take effect from 1 December this year.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the committee and the officers of the Assembly for the work done on these standing orders, and I commend this report, as well as the standing orders therein contained, to the Assembly.
Debate adjourned.
TABLED PAPERS
Travel Reports for Members for Nelson, Brennan, Arnhem, Greatorex, Casuarina, Nhulunbuy, Johnston and Arafura
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table nine travel reports from the members for Nelson, Brennan, Arnhem, Greatorex, Casuarina, Nhulunbuy, Johnston and Arafura pursuant to Paragraph 4.12 of the Remuneration Tribunal Determination.
Discussion Paper – Assembly
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I also table a discussion paper on Assembly committee reform which Madam Speaker forwarded to all members on 20 August 2015.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mrs FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, Palmerston recently welcomed a new business into the community. Argos Car Wash is located on Coffey Street in the Wishart Business Precinct on Wishart Road, just outside Durack. Argos held their grand opening over the weekend of 11 and 12 July 2015.
My colleague, the member for Brennan, and I were fortunate enough to be asked to sponsor the barbecue for the grand opening of Argos Car Wash, all funds raised could go towards the very worthy charity, Autism NT. I am happy to report that over $1000 was raised thanks to the generosity of the community and everyone involved.
As part of their grand opening, Argos put special deals on all the washes they offer, which include cars, trucks, boats, dogs and even laundry. With a fully functioning laundrette on-site, Argos is sure to be a popular car wash for the constituents of Palmerston.
This great community event included a sausage sizzle, a jumping castle for the kids and games for young and old, with a tyre toss a highlight for many of the men.
The Classic Ford Club and the Classic Holden Car Club attended the opening, bringing with them many car enthusiasts and spectators. The proud owners of the classic cars were able to show off their much-loved vehicles for all to see.
Hot 100 was broadcasting live from the official opening on Saturday with promos, prizes and giveaways. Ms Cherie Vance, President and EO of Autism NT, was interviewed by Ben and Harry to spread the word on Autism Awareness. Autism NT is a not-for-profit organisation and is managed by a committee of parents, carers and professionals with an interest in autism.
I thank Argos Car Wash for putting on this great community event, and I wish them the best of luck with their business.
Somerville Community Services is celebrating its 50th year as a Northern Territory community service this year. Somerville is a local charity which employs 260 Territorians. It has held many functions and events to celebrate this milestone, and has well and truly kept the party going over the course of the year. I attended one of the more recent events, which was a pink themed high tea fundraiser. I thank the staff and volunteers who took the time to make the event as beautiful and enjoyable as it was.
At the high tea, Hon Austin Asche, Somerville’s long-term patron and supporter, paid homage to the work of the organisation, pointing out they have an open-door policy there, supporting anyone under any circumstance.
The recent launch of Somerville’s book, Crossing the Divide, at Parliament House was an extremely popular event. This book is dedicated to the memory of Margaret Somerville, whose example every day inspires the work of Somerville Community Services today. Her integrity, humility and commitment to improving the quality of people’s lives is being upheld to this day. As many Territorians sadly remember, Margaret passed away last year at 101 years of age. Up until that time she was a wonderful mentor to the organisation at every opportunity.
Vicki O’Halloran, the Chief Executive Officer of Somerville, said knowing their organisation is born out of a history that pays tribute to the strength and courage of such a great woman is fitting. For Vicki, to know Margaret was a privilege, and to be her friend was a great honour.
Somerville’s operations, in its 50th year, include disability services, youth and targeted family services, child and family counselling and support, financial services, homelessness programs, no-interest loans and emergency financial assistance. Somerville has a proud presence in Palmerston, with its wonderful facility in Gray being an integral part of our community. Last year we celebrated the opening of its Northern Territory government-funded extension, which has been welcomed warmly by the staff and clients. It is a truly wonderful facility and provides a range of family and financial counselling services.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I congratulate past and present staff of Somerville Community Services over the last 50 years for their contribution to the Northern Territory. We toast your success in the last 50 years, and your future importance and ongoing contribution.
Ms MANISON (Wanguri): Mr Deputy Speaker, this evening I place on the record the frustration being felt with the Territory and federal government after allowing the closure of three remote childcare centres this month, and their inability to take action to keep these centres open to provide important services to the children and drive local employment opportunities.
The evidence of the lifelong benefits of investing in early childhood development is unequivocal. The role that early childhood educators and quality childcare plays in helping in the critical development domains for a child is well documented. With this knowledge, the Australian government has invested around $4m in the communities of Atitjere, Yuelamu and Nyirripi, building new childcare centres which opened their doors about six months ago.
This is a wonderful investment for these communities. This is giving young children access to the benefit of early childcare educators and the activities that help in their personal development. It also gives working families access to childcare options in these remote locations. It also creates jobs for local people in childcare. We all know and agree that creating local jobs in remote communities is essential to their future.
Yet about 15 full-time and part-time jobs have been lost. The Central Desert Regional Council has made the hard decision to close these centres due to funding shortfalls from the Commonwealth. This has seen funding decreased from $162 000 to $128 000 for Atitjere, a decrease from $155 000 to $128 000 for Nyirripi and a decrease from $165 000 to $128 000 for Yuelamu.
It makes you wonder how the Commonwealth or Territory governments cannot find these funds so these childcare centres can run, especially when this small investment could help so many children in their early development and in preparation for their education in school. Children and families are missing out and passionate people wanting to work in childcare in these communities have also lost their chance.
Why should people in the bush miss out on quality childcare and early childhood development opportunities that families in urban areas have such easy access to? If we are to overcome the huge deficits in education we are seeing in remote communities, focusing on quality childcare and early childhood development is an important step. Yet this month these new childcare centres have had to close their doors due to the lack of operational funding.
The federal government failed to reach an agreement with the Central Desert Regional Council and watched these centres close. The Territory government has also watched this happen. We have heard very little from it on the work it is doing to keep the centres open. Given it is their political allies in power in Canberra and the Indigenous Affairs Minister, Nigel Scullion, is one of their own, you would think it would have good access to gain the ear of the minister to say this needs to be sorted out. Or you would think the Territory government might even do the work to find the funding, but nothing appears to have happened as yet.
The frustration about these closures was well articulated by the Central Desert Regional Council president, Adrian Dixon, in a media release from the council on 10 August 2015, which stated:
Central Desert Regional Council President Adrian Dixon is furious with the lack of vision shown by the Commonwealth Government. ‘This is an attack on children, this is an attack on families, and this is an attack on Aboriginal people living in remote Communities. This is treating us like we’re second class citizens.’ Mr Dixon said.
President Dixon says he doesn’t understand the Commonwealth’s stubbornness. ‘I’ve written to the Prime Minister, I have written to Minister Morrison, I’ve written to and met with Minister Scullion. This Government talks about protecting children, giving them the best start in life, improving school attendance and helping adults find and keep jobs. Child care centres do all these things. But the Government is not listening, it’s too busy talking at us.’ Mr Dixon said.
- The Council will close the centres immediately, leading to a loss of 15 full-time and part-time jobs for Aboriginal people and the termination of a critical service for kids and working parents in remote Central Australia.
I have also been contacted by a passionate education advocate who has been speaking to those on the ground impacted by the closure of childcare centres. Their frustration is clear as they can see the benefit of the centres and what they can mean to their communities. This person said the community is upset about the closure. It is a very expensive new building and it had just hired staff, settled into routines and was providing great service. Now, at very short notice, it is to be closed for an indefinite period. It will deprive the young mums of a central gathering place with great facilities and it was a bridge for professional service providers to access those with family responsibilities in raising young kids.’
It is hard to believe that between the Abbott and the Giles governments they are unable to make these childcare centres work. They have turned their backs on these communities and now have brand new $4m childcare centres left empty and unused, when it would be a huge benefit to have them open and providing early childhood learning and care. Local jobs have also been lost. Most tragic of all, there are now children and families in these communities missing out on the opportunity to access childcare and the benefits of a stronger focus on early childhood development.
I have questions for the Giles government about what it is doing to help these communities and these centres. Where has the Giles government stood on this very issue and where has the advocacy been with regard to these centres? What discussions has the Giles government had with its federal counterpart, Senator Nigel Scullion? I am also interested in what the member for Stuart has been doing to fight for these centres, two of which are in her electorate. I would also like to know what work this government has been doing with the Central Desert Regional Council with regard to this issue.
Every child, no matter where they live in the Northern Territory, deserves to have a government that supports them and their future. Having access to quality childcare creates opportunities for children in their early development and is important. Families wanting opportunities to work in these communities are entitled to have access to childcare so they can get a job and know their children are getting safe quality care and education while they are at work.
These centres need to be reopened without delay. The government needs to fund these services sufficiently so qualified staff can be employed to mentor, support and train local staff. The parents, children and childcare workers living in these communities deserve nothing less.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this is a shameful situation and it is hard to believe this has been allowed to occur. I hope we are able to see this resolved as soon as possible for the benefit of the children and their families in Atitjere, Yuelamu and Nyirripi.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, these evening I briefly mention some of the wonderful young people in my electorate who are doing extraordinary things in their field of sports, martial arts and things of that nature. I know there are many young people who do good things everywhere but these young people need special attention because one of them went on an overseas trip.
First I acknowledge the achievements of Chelsea Mudge, whose family I know. Chelsea received a First Dan Black Belt in Tang Soo Do Karate. I do not know if many people are aware of how hard it is to achieve a black belt in any martial art, but it is extraordinarily hard. I did jujitsu for a long time when I was at school and university and managed to get about two levels below a black belt. It was incredibly hard and that was in one field of martial arts. This young girl, who is only 16 or 17, has reached this high level, which is extraordinary. She is extraordinary and a lovely young woman but she also has a wonderful, lovely family.
She and her sister Shannah also participate in horse and pony club activities for the Noonamah Horse and Pony Club. They do exceptionally well. They are good team players and participants and really embrace that kind of activity. Both these girls are also involved with the Duke of Edinburgh Awards. They have won silver and bronze awards this year and I know their parents and everyone involved with them are very proud of that. I congratulate Warren and Lyn on their girls; it is a pleasure to know your family. Chelsea keep doing that Tang Soo Do karate because we need young girls to mentor other young girls that this kind of sport can be done by women, and done well.
I also mention some exploits of some fellows in rugby union in the rural area, particularly the Swampdogs Rugby Union Football Club. We are getting towards the end of the year in rugby union, but not so long ago the Swampdogs had seven representatives in the NT Under 16 rugby union team. Brodie Morcom, Joseph Cameron, Perth Inthakaet, Matthew Maurice, Harry Berns, Darren Ea, and Josh Robinson all went to the Gold Coast in mid-July to compete in the competitions. Congratulations to them not only for being selected but also for playing and representing the Territory well, and of course representing the Swampdogs in the rural areas. Well done to those young fellows.
The other one was the NT Under 18 School Boys Rugby Union team where six Swampdogs players were selected to represent the Territory. They travelled by train to Bowral in New South Wales in late June and went on to the competition in July. The Swampdogs were proud to have six members in the squad with Jack Byrnes being Vice Captain, Rhys Morcom, Braydon Becker, Jacob Beissel, Jack Byrnes, Clancy Court and Jett Norris. Congratulations to those young fellows, too. The Swampdogs Rugby Union Football Club is a good club which is very family orientated. Like many clubs around the Territory it has an enormous number of young people in the junior teams of Under 5, Under 6, Under 7, Under 9 and so on.
Recently, it held its seniors’ night where all the clubs around the Top End came together and gave out awards and recognised achievements throughout the year. I extend my congratulations to Mitchell McLachlan from the Swampdogs who took out equal winner in the most tries scored for the year. Well done to Mitchell.
Congratulations to all of the club people because they have worked hard building their Freds Pass Reserve facility: Rebecca Johnston, Glen Byrnes, Craig and Alison Dixon, Paul Albano, Mal Le Lay and many more young people who come together to try to make that club a real success, which I believe they have done. It is very family orientated.
It is a good sport as we know. Everyone likes watching rugby union, but not so much when we do not win against the All Blacks. But that is another story which I will leave for another time.
I also mention the exploits of one Territory girl who went to Kentucky in America as part of the International Mounted Games Exchange in 2015. This competition was set up in 1957 in England by the Duke of Edinburgh, who wanted it for children who rode ordinary horses and ponies. There was nothing special about them; he just wanted to get them to enjoy the outdoors and horsemanship.
These games have been occurring around the world since 1957, particularly in the Commonwealth countries but also others. It was held in America this year in Kentucky. The Australian team went with six members of 16-year-olds plus their coach and some family members. Team Australia came first. They competed against teams from around the world and took out first, with second being Great Britain, third Canada and fourth the USA.
The Northern Territory member of the Australian team was Natasha Clayton. She travelled to New South Wales where they held training camps. Teams got together to get to know each other in a place called Londonderry, New South Wales, and then they went to America to compete in the competitions.
Given you have a person from the Northern Territory and people from Australia, they do not take horses. They go to America and have literally 15 minutes to half-an-hour before the competition to get to know the horse. It is a horse they have never seen, let alone ridden before they compete. Of course, they competed well.
The interschool and international mounted games are very interesting and funny things. It is fun; they do some weird things with ropes, sacks, poles, squashing balloons, bottle races and goodness knows what else. It is about testing the young rider’s skills, agility, horsemanship and ability to work in a team. Clearly, even though the six members from Australia did not know each other before the competition and the training camps, they came together well as a team and performed exceptionally well because they took out first in the world.
I am hoping when I get to meet Natasha again we can get some publicity for her. It is an extraordinary achievement that a young woman from the Northern Territory was not only selected for the national team, but went to America and won the international championships. Congratulations to Natasha and all her team members. Well done to her and her family, because I know they support her in her quest and sport, which is horse riding, pony dressage and things of that nature.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, well done to all the young people in the rural area. Keep playing; play fair, play hard and enjoy.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I speak of the retirement of a number of people from the Northern Territory public service whose work for the Northern Territory has been sufficiently noteworthy to earn them honourable mentions in this House.
This year Ms Susan Gayle Moran retired from the Department of Health after an impressive 43 years of service as a registered nurse. Ms Moran commenced her nursing career in the Northern Territory at Alice Springs Hospital where she worked as a ward nurse in maternity, paediatrics, outpatients and the emergency department. She then contributed 10 years of her considerable skills and experience to work in the clinic at the remote community of Lake Nash for two years.
On returning from the bush she continued in primary healthcare and focused on working with Aboriginal people in Alice Springs community healthcare. Since 1990 Ms Moran has worked in community health in the Katherine region, retiring as the Northern Territory-wide Manager of the School of Health Services.
Ms Moran’s significant contribution to the community and the nursing profession has been acknowledged through the following awards. In 2010 she was awarded the national Coral Floyd Family Planning Award for her long-term commitment and dedication to improving the sexual health of people across the Northern Territory. In 2011 she was awarded the Living Legend award for her sustained outstanding contribution to nursing in the Northern Territory. This award was known as the Administrator’s Medal for a Lifetime Achievement in Nursing and/or Midwifery.
Ms Moran’s farewell was held at the Katherine Sport and Social Recreation Club, with her colleagues and local community members celebrating her contribution to the health and wellbeing of Territorians.
Ms Melinda Griffiths retired as a dental therapist of Oral Health Services in the NT Department of Health at close of business on 26 June 2015 after more than 38 years of service. Melinda dedicated her working life to providing and improving oral health services to Northern Territory children.
Melinda began her dental therapist cadetship in Adelaide in 1973. Upon graduation in 1975 she moved to Tennant Creek to work for two years, before moving to Katherine for the next 27 years. Whilst living in Katherine Melinda raised her family and became involved in the community pursuing her loves of fishing and four-wheel driving.
Throughout her career Melinda played a key role in implementing various dental initiatives including setting up school tooth brushing programs in remote communities and the provision of mouthguards for school sporting teams. She was one of the pioneering dental therapists to initiate and develop delivery of dental services to children located in isolated communities. This extended from the Gulf of Carpentaria in the east to the Western Australian border and south to Daly Waters.
Her desire to ensure service provision to remote area patients remained a driving force during her years of employment with the Department of Health. As part of a two-person team, Melinda travelled via four-wheel drive troopie to over 16 remote communities throughout the Katherine region, transporting all necessary equipment and supplies to ensure the provision of clinical services in diverse and often challenging settings.
Later in her career Melinda implemented a health promotion activity with the Tata Family Centre in Karama aimed at reaching high-risk families. Melinda conducted oral health sessions and created a non-judgmental environment where families could chat about oral health concerns and find out information about services where available.
Since relocating to Darwin, Melinda has continued to work in the school dental clinics, including Karama, Manunda Terrace and Stuart Park, as well as the Top End remote communities of Milingimbi, Daly River, Pine Creek and Ramingining. Most recently Melinda had the pleasure of working in the purpose-built multi-chair paediatric dental clinic in Casuarina specifically designed as a welcoming child-friendly dental clinic.
Melinda has remained active in maintaining her professional knowledge and skills, and has also been a member of the Australian Dental Oral Health Therapists Association and professional officers union, now the CPSU, throughout her working life.
I thank Melinda for her dedication and the great service she has provided to the Territory over the years.
I am pleased to acknowledge Mr Alan Comish, a Katherine resident, on his retirement. Alan completed his mechanics trade on leaving school. After a short time working as a mechanic he began a career as a truck driver on the west coast of Australia. In 1970 he moved to Cairns. In 1972 Alan travelled to Katherine for a short holiday before travelling west in order to purchase a new truck. During his visit to Katherine he was offered two months’ work and decided to stay.
Alan commenced employment with the Northern Territory government in 1972 at the Department of Transport and Works. Six years later he moved to the Department of Health. In early 1978 Alan commenced employment as the hospital maintenance foreman at Katherine Hospital.
He has weathered many a change throughout his tenure, including the growth of health and safety standards in the workplace and rapid procedural changes in areas such as infection control, for example.
Alan has achieved a great deal in his life and career. Alan’s passion is cars and trucks, and he is a speedway enthusiast and avid supporter. I share Alan’s ongoing love affair with fossil fuels and the internal combustion engine.
Alan met his life partner in Katherine and together they purchased a home where they raised their daughter. He will retire after 44 years of service to the people of the Northern Territory, 38 of those spent in services of the Department of Health.
Alan will be sorely missed by his Katherine Hospital colleagues and friends. In retirement he plans to travel around Australia with his life partner. I wish Alan well with his planned travel and future endeavours. I commend and congratulate him to this House with his dedicated service over 44 years.
After 30 years of nursing service to the Northern Territory public service, Ms Estrella Munoz is retiring on 31 August 2015. Ms Munoz commenced work as a remote health nurse at Oenpelli on 30 March 1984. I must be getting old; I joined the public service in 1983. Since then she has held the position of remote area services primary healthcare manager in a number of other communities, nurse coordinator recruitment and education, nurse coordinator preventable diseases in Top End remote, coordinator preventable chronic disease educator and health development and continuous quality improvement facilitator in Central Australia.
Throughout her career, Ms Munoz has strived for professional excellence and completed postgraduate studies in midwifery, a Bachelor of Applied Science degree in Advanced Nursing Practice in Community Health Nursing with majors in nurse practitioner, a maternal and infant health master’s degree in public health and a postgraduate Diploma in Health Promotion.
Ms Munoz has had many career highlights and in summary has given much and taken little. Her contribution to remote health in the Northern Territory is truly significant, not only in its duration but in its depth and its breadth. She displayed a passion and tenacity in whichever role she took and significantly contributed to improvements in Aboriginal health in a very challenging work environment. Ms Munoz is well regarded by all her former colleagues across the Northern Territory and is renowned for her dedication and hard work.
Ms Vera McMahon, a long-time employee of the Department of Health, commenced long-service leave on 14 August 2015, with the intention of retiring from the Northern Territory government after more than 29 years of service. Ms McMahon started her career in 1986 as a domestic and kitchen hand in the Tennant Creek Hospital. Over the next 18 years she worked in various administrative roles, eventually working her way through the levels and acting manager of Barkly Health Services during this period.
Vera was also very busy raising her young family and studying. This culminated with Vera attaining her postgraduate certificate of the Public Sector Management Program.
Ms McMahon moved to Darwin in 2004 where she initially commenced work with Oral Health Services as a senior policy officer. Apart from a short term with Housing, she remained with Oral Health Services working with senior management roles including business manager and Director of the Oral Health Services.
Ms McMahon was instrumental in establishing key projects for oral health. The first was planning and implementation of the school dental clinic upgrades. In 2006 she managed a project to investigate options for oral health specific electronic client information management systems, which led to the implementation of the current system Titanium.
In 2008, as part of the Northern Territory’s response to the Australian government intervention, Ms McMahon was asked to work on Helping Hands, a hearing health project in Central Australia. This project offered her a unique opportunity to be involved in one of the most ambitious projects ever undertaken by the Department of Health. Those initial efforts have translated into an expanded hearing health program that exists today and continues to achieve improved hearing outcomes for Aboriginal clients in remote communities.
After some adventure holidays, including trekking the Kokoda Trail, Ms McMahon returned to oral health in 2012 to complete her employment as a senior project manager. During this time she has willingly shared her corporate knowledge by mentoring new managers, which is something she has done generously over the years.
Ms McMahon intends to enjoy some time travelling, starting with a cruise to Europe in October. I thank her for her dedication and the great service she has provided to the Territory over the years, and I wish her well for her retirement.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I will not get through the last one.
Ms MOSS (Casuarina): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I start by telling a story. About three years ago I had the opportunity to meet my partner’s father for the first time. Meeting parents is always a nerve-racking event for anyone in a relationship, but it was a time I treasure.
In the time we spent together, we reflected on the shared mannerisms between Gavin and his boys and the conversations we had were about plans for the future that Jake and I wanted to have together. We shared food, we hung out and we spent time being together as a family.
It was also an incredibly emotionally charged time because my partner at that point – then 25 – was faced with the reality that he was losing his father because Gavin was undergoing treatment for late-stage cancer. We wanted to spend as much time with him as we possibly could, and he with us.
Gavin was many things. He was a tradie, a father, and an all-round carer of all people. He was a collector of people. He was a man who, in his younger days, had been an incredible free-diver, who loved his cars – working on them and driving them – and loved his time in the ocean. He could have not been more proud of his children. We lost Gavin that December but we will never lose the time we spent with him.
Tonight I address some of the comments that have been made over the last week by the Minister for Health, which I believe have caused a great deal of anger and offence in the community. I do not believe they should go without comment in this House, particularly on a day when quality of debate is topical and we should be having conversations about respectful debate.
The comments were made in relation to terminally-ill seniors at a conference this week and were widely reported. I am sure others have been approached by their constituents eager to share their views on the minister’s ideas about cutting services for those who are terminally ill. I have as I was coming out of a shop in Casuarina yesterday. Somebody said about these comments, ‘Make sure you give them heaps please’.
The comments, made in Seniors Month no less, at best were a poor attempt at starting a health debate, and at worst were a flippant thought bubble lacking in judgment and compassion. Of greater concern is that these comments are not isolated incidents. They are part of a long line of government members saying outrageous things. At least this is something that remains consistent with this government.
There really is no wonder that the public’s trust in the CLP government’s ability to create good public policy continues to plummet. It was shocking to hear the Minister for Health last week say – and I quote from the ABC on 20 August.
- ‘I suspect if you spoke to somebody who … for argument’s sake, had end-stage renal failure and said, “We can continue treatment but by discontinuing treatment your grandchildren would have a better opportunity”, many of those old people would say “Yeah, I accept that” ...
Quite frankly, there is a lot that can be said about that quote. However, to me it sounds a lot like a guilt trip for people on their death bed. It sits horribly with many people because there are many Territory families who, like mine, have had family members who are terminally ill and loved nothing more than to spend as much time as possible with them before they passed away. These are people who made long-standing contributions to our community, I add.
The minister’s suggestion does not seem to be an attempt at a conversation about euthanasia but a thought process about an arbitrary decision to be made by government about when those services stop. The minister also said if he wanted to start a debate on health spending then that is what he has done. However, I suggest otherwise. If the minister legitimately wanted a respectful debate with Territorians about health priorities, I believe he knows better than to go about it this way. At a time when we continue to hear about extensive ministerial travel on which we are still await full details, when we have an exceptionally expensive alcohol treatment system that has not yet been independently evaluated, the minister’s thought bubble around investment into early childhood development is to cut the resources from the terminally ill first.
Yes, we want rational and evidence-based debate about health in the Northern Territory. That does not mean emotional intelligence should be completed vacated in this space. These are conversations about life and death.
The member for Brennan and the Chief Minister have distanced themselves from the comments and we are interested to hear about which colleagues were canvassed about this idea. What does the Minister for Senior Territorians have to say about these comments? COTA, the peak advocacy body in Darwin for senior Territorians has said if this is government policy, it is something they would have to make representations about. They represent the best interests of senior Territorians.
It must be mentioned that these comments came a week after others were made about deaths in custody. I quote from the NT News on 16 August:
- NT Attorney-General John Elferink has rebuffed criticism from the NT Coroner over his government’s controversial Alcohol Mandatory Treatment policy and paperless arrest laws saying two indigenous people who died in custody would have otherwise died in the ‘gutter’.
On this side of the House we were shocked to see that splashed on the front page of the NT News. I do not know another jurisdiction in this country in which a government would be okay with one of their senior ministers making comments like these about deaths in custody. It is utterly appalling. These comments were from our Attorney-General, the minister for Children and Families, Justice, Mental Health and Disability Services, and Correctional Services, areas of social policy in which the minister makes daily decisions about vulnerable people in our community. The gutter comments were made about a situation involving the death of two Territorians, people with families, friends and loved ones.
We understand the minister is not perturbed by what others think of him and I respect that. However, the public dialogue he engages with on matters pertaining to people’s lives and the most vulnerable in our society shapes people’s views about the management of these portfolios.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I have raised these issues tonight because, quite frankly, I believe it is offensive to be lectured in this House every time we sit about respectful debate when so often government ministers see fit to shoot from the hip with bizarre ideas that continue to reveal their division.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I lecture the member for Port Darwin. The title of the lecture is ‘Respect your Elders’. I will start with a story as well, like my colleague the member for Casuarina.
As I am a grandfather I have made a very serious decision in my life to be around for as long as possible because I see myself as an important part of the growth, development and socialisation of my grandchildren, by supporting their parents in the rounding of good citizens, good human beings, successful people in our community and upmost, people with good health to enjoy life.
At this stage of the lecture it is probably important to reflect on CLP policy of the past. The member for Port Darwin has been around the blocks, as I have. The member for Port Darwin would acknowledge and recognise CLP policy over 27 years to not provide secondary education for students in the bush. Whether we like it or not, this impacted on Aboriginal children, representing 39% of the Territory population, with a majority of those living in regional remote areas.
Without a secondary education and the holistic package of education these kids became vulnerable in all kinds of aspects, including health. If you examine any statistics on Aboriginal health and wellbeing you can see severe deficits in life expectancy across our Aboriginal community in the Northern Territory. This relates, to a large degree, to a lack of education. I stress that the Labor government in 2001 set about immediately addressing that.
Running in parallel was the CLP policy of the time, over 27 years of government, not to provide renal dialysis for patients in regional and remote areas. The Health minister at the time was interviewed copious times and challenged on a national level, and was always very quick to respond that the CLP government would provide renal dialysis for patients who travelled to and lived in Alice Springs and Darwin.
The number of people who went without renal dialysis, passed to an early stage of end renal failure and consequently died was documented at the time and can still be reflected upon. This was a direct result of government policy. Once again, the Labor government, on taking power in the Northern Territory, reversed that policy and provided renal dialysis for patients in regional areas. These massive policy deficits had very resounding impacts on a generational level.
I remind the member for Port Darwin of the euthanasia debate. Being a person who chose to live in very remote areas and work with communities, it became very apparent that the euthanasia debate caused a lot of concern to the seniors in Aboriginal communities. It was a time where, as a teacher working with health professionals, we spent an inordinate amount of time trying to make people comfortable and aware their health could be enhanced if they engaged with the medical profession, including going to hospitals. The euthanasia debate reversed a lot of that hard work, with Aboriginal seniors not wanting to go to hospital and not wanting treatment because they feared that place – you went in the front door and did not come back out. That was a major learning curve for me as a Territorian. I will never forget that example.
Teachers and health professionals across regional and remote areas continued that education and awareness process because we knew enhanced health services would improve health outcomes. We need our seniors around. We need to show respect. I, as a member of this House and an elected community member, was totally shocked by the member for Port Darwin’s public comments.
The member for Port Darwin, a highly articulate and intelligent member of the Territory community, an elected member of parliament and a community leader, should reflect seriously on the use of a cheap genre of political rhetoric to capture a media headline. The member for Port Darwin can do so much better. The member for Port Darwin now has the opportunity to address those statements and inform the Territory community, as the Minister for Health and the Attorney-General, that those comments were wrong; they were cheap and nasty and impacted heavily on our community. That would be a courageous outcome; it would show leadership and humility.
I also reflect on the Tennant Creek Renal Dialysis Unit, which was built under a Labor government and doubled in capacity under that government, and now supports an incredible element of our community in dealing with end-stage renal failure and providing quality of life. I encourage the member for Port Darwin, the Minister for Health, to visit some our regional renal dialysis units and meet the patients, nurses and staff. Look at the bonds that have developed. The cross-cultural education, appreciation and awareness between health professionals and Aboriginal patients in these renal centres is incredible.
I could give recent examples from our Desert Harmony Festival in Tennant Creek, which had a focus on disability. The National Disability Insurance Scheme was a major sponsor and renal dialysis was a hot topic in that conversation and narrative. The quality of life achieved by these patients, many who are seniors, translates to better mentoring and guidance of younger families. Many of them are grandparents like me. They are still in our community, still guiding and nurturing and still important.
There is no such thing as a trade-off. I can remember the member for Port Darwin ridiculing me, turning it into a political joke when I used the term ‘economic rationalism’. In an academic context, economic rationalism is defined and can be related to a liberalist political agenda. Economic rationalism underpinned the member for Port Darwin’s poor comments which hurt many Territorians and have once again, like the euthanasia debate, put out a very unclear message of concern. That message will translate through different sectors of regional and remote communities. It will be misconstrued and misinterpreted. It will hurt and have an outcome that can be directly linked to a politician making a cheap comment in front of a fancy camera crew. The member for Port Darwin can, and needs to, do a lot better.
I conclude my remarks with a comment on the value of life. Respect your elders, minister – clear and concise. The value of life must be celebrated and acknowledged always, when a child is conceived, when a child is born, people living their life and the life of a senior. As my colleague, the member for Casuarina, has said, there is a very important value of life of patients suffering terminal illness. We have to value palliative care to ensure their end stage of life is the best it can be. We must celebrate, acknowledge and value human beings.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I was very fortunate to have my mother until the age of 21 when she passed away early. She was a triple certificate sister who nursed and taught people and guided me onto my further life in the Northern Territory, and I cannot thank her enough. I only wish she was around to write my speech for the member for Port Darwin because it would have been so much better than I have delivered tonight.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Barkly for the speech he just made, especially the last bit. I fully support what he said about life. It was excellent to hear what the member for Barkly has just said. I agree that we need to value human life.
I will talk about a number of subjects. I will give you an idea of what I think about seniors and how important it is to value them. Much will be said about what the member for Port Darwin said, but I would rather give my understanding of the importance of seniors. I read the COTA report recently which contains some very interesting ideas about the value of seniors and of people as they get older.
What I saw on the weekend was a valuable lesson for me. I was at the closing of the seniors’ fortnight – as it was — at Woodroffe Primary School. So was the Acting Deputy Speaker. They held a concert where the Senior Songsters performed. The Senior Songsters are not what you might call sprightly; they are of a good age. Do you know they go around to the aged care facilities and palliative care every week; it might be on a Wednesday. They provide their talents to bring pleasure and enjoyment to people who are not able to get around anymore and who may be in their last days on this Earth. There is no dollar value with that, but there is the important human value which you cannot measure in economic terms.
We have to be very careful in this debate that we do not forget that it is just as important as when you are making an economic analysis of people as they get older.
I was most impressed by what those people do. Even at the event at Woodroffe Primary School there was dancing and music which brought enjoyment to those older people. That in itself is important. Again, you cannot put a dollar value on it, but that is something that is just as important as a person’s economic value in this life. I needed to say that those people are important. I can say that because I am one of them, as the 65th year of my life kicked over earlier this year. At least I can speak to people, you might say, on equal terms. I raised that because I gather that is what some of the debate has been about today.
I have not had a chance to watch the news, but it seems a couple of things which concern me were quoted regarding planning in the rural area, which was raised in parliament today. There were some things that appeared to be said about the Holtze area that need some clarification. This article was sent to me – and I am happy to be corrected on it – which may be a quote from the news:
- Mr Tollner told parliament the government’s promise to build Palmerston hospital was dependent on its plan to allow residential developers to urbanise Darwin’s rural area. The hospital site was chosen before the government announced its plan to develop Holtze in Darwin’s rural area. But the minister said if the opposition and Independents succeeded in thwarting the government’s suburban development plan for the area, that would stop it building the hospital.
- Make absolutely no mistake if this motion is supported, you kill the Palmerston hospital.
We have already had the debate about the so-called killing of the Palmerston hospital. That has been laid to rest. But the issue is about the suburban development.
The minister might not have said that I did not understand it, but he gave the impression that this area is not going to have 9500 dwellings. In fact, it is. That is in the statement from the Planning Commission’s draft report. This area of Holtze spreads down to Howard Springs Road. It is a very large area, so we are not talking just about the hospital precinct; we are talking about the peri-urban area that is on the Greater Darwin Regional Plan.
I have heard the argument from planners that we must have suburban development around the hospital. I do not know how we come to that conclusion. The whole of Palmerston is just across the road from where the Palmerston hospital will be. What difference would it make if the development of the land next to the hospital was rural and not suburban? Are you encouraging people to come closer to the hospital, hoping they will all be sick and that will help benefit the number of people going through the hospital?
It really is not the Palmerston and regional hospital, it is actually the Litchfield and regional hospital if you want to be accurate. Or, more accurately, it is the Holtze and regional hospital because it is not in Palmerston. It is there to serve both the Palmerston area and the rural area.
Having high-density housing in this area will make no difference to whether that hospital operates or not. There will obviously be a need for some urban development in the area, especially where accommodation is required. But there is no requirement to fill up this land with 1800 dwellings as the department of Lands and Planning said in its PowerPoint presentation when I attended its office some time ago.
The issue being discussed at the moment is that unfortunately the minister, in his great joy of reading a media release from the people on Wallaby Holtze Road, forgot they are only saying they are happy about what has happened now. They are hoping there will be consultation in relation to the next phase of this development. I supported what the Planning Commission did in changing the original plan, but I also said the residents are pleased they are being consulted, but consultation must continue. That is what the minister has forgotten.
There is a belief that this land will be chopped up. I do not know whether the Planning Commission or the minister thinks they have had a win. In fact, the only win you have had is that you have allowed the land to be developed as it was promised to be developed along Wallaby Holtze Road. You still have not communicated with the residents to find whether they want urban development in the area as proposed in this plan.
The other concern I have is that the Planning Commissioner was quoted as saying this is inevitable. I get the same feeling from the minister. When ministers, Planning Commissioners or whoever say things are inevitable, you ask, ‘So are you not going to consult?’ They are really saying, ‘Oh dear, how sad. Go away, it will happen; put up with it.’ That is the impression one gets.
It has been so difficult to get the Planning Commission to come to the table. Now it has it is starting to listen to what the community says. It has changed things, and I congratulate the Planning Commission for doing that. I am not saying the Planning Commission does not do a lot of work, but I am critical that it has not done enough and the right type of consultation on what will happen in the rural area.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I do not agree that you have to have suburban development around the hospital. You may have some, but the whole area does not have to be turned into suburban development. It was promised to be small rural blocks of 1 ha. That is what I would prefer, but the best thing to do is talk to the people and find out what they think.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, in the June sitting week I contributed to a debate about government overseas travel. During my contribution I made reference to members of the public and the Darwin business community who were invited participants as part of a delegation on a government-sponsored visit to Greece in late 2014.
In parliament and the wider community there has been a spotlight on transparency and accountability around ministerial government travel and the value it returns to Territory taxpayers.
Whilst I did not name the individuals in parliament, my comments were made known to them and they were, understandably, offended. It is not my intention to offend members of the public who have the Territory’s best interests at heart, and for that I am sincerely very sorry.
On Friday 18 June 2015, I phoned each of the three gentlemen involved – Mr Andy Bruyn, Mr John Anictomatis and Mr Michael Tennant – and offered a mea culpa and an apology for any offence I had caused them. I now place that apology on the public record on the floor of the House and reiterate, once again, how sorry I am to have caused offence.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016