2007-10-10
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Mr WOOD (Nelson)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition not conforming with standing orders from 146 petitioners relating to the amalgamation of the Litchfield Shire Council. This petition is similar to petition Nos 55, 61 and 62. Madam Speaker, I move the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, today I report to the House on the Chief Minister’s Northern Territory Export and Industry Awards, which were held in Parliament House last Thursday. As the patron of the awards, and the Minister for Asian Relations and Trade, I was particularly pleased to help present the awards and hear about the achievements of some of our most innovative and successful exporters and manufacturers. More businesses than ever before are excelling in the Territory, and our rapidly improving export performance is proof of that.
Exports are an extremely important contributor to our economy. Last financial year, the value of exported goods from the Territory was $3.3bn. This figure is expected to rise when the value of exports of services has been determined and added to the merchandise trade. This year, the value of our exports is forecast to jump to around $4.7bn and, while the resources boom is obviously having a significant impact, our small to medium enterprises are contributing in a big way.
I am pleased to advise the House of this year’s winners.
The Emerging Exporter Award went to Pensyl Pty Ltd. Pensyl grows and exports timbers from the Tiwi Islands and has established reliable markets for its timber in southern China.
The Small to Medium Manufacturer Award was won by Safaritrek International Leisure Group, a small business located in the Darwin Business Park. The business exports an Australian designed and manufactured mosquito control system, and eco-lodge tents into Africa, the Middle East and Asia.
Our Small Business Award winner was the well-known Guppytraders.com which has been successfully exporting its financial market analysis information and techniques for a number of years. It has established a solid name for itself in China, which has the potential to become the world’s most significant financial market.
The Arts and Entertainment Award was taken out by Maningrida Arts and Culture. Maningrida artists have established a worldwide reputation for the production of high-quality indigenous art on bark, wooden and fibre sculptures. Through their extensive international exhibitions, mainly in Europe, indigenous culture is being shared with the world.
The Agribusiness Award winner was Porosus Pty Ltd. Porosus, better known as the Darwin Crocodile Farm, has developed a crocodile breeding and growing program enabling it to produce high-volume and high-quality crocodile skins which are exported for processing before being sent to major fashion houses to be manufactured into high-quality luxury items such as handbags and shoes. Porosus’ aim is to have crocodile skins from the Territory recognised as being the finest quality skins in the world.
The Education Award was won by Charles Darwin University. The CDU continues to attract international students from all over the world - in fact, 60 countries - and it is growing reputation will only increase those numbers in the year ahead.
The Services Award went to Perkins Shipping. Perkins Shipping Group is Australia’s largest privately owned shipping company and provides regular shipping services to Singapore, Indonesia and East Timor.
Congratulations to all our winners. All the award category winners are automatically nominated to become the NT Exporter of the Year which recognises the overall export achievements for business. This year’s 2007 Northern Territory Exporter of the Year was won by Perkins Shipping. Perkins is a worthy winner, not only for its exporting success, but also as being one of the Territory’s most respected corporate citizens and a significant contributor to the economy.
All the winners will now go forward to the annual Australian Export Awards which are staged by Austrade. This year, the dinner will be held in Brisbane at the end of November. We will be offering, as usual, financial assistance to our winners to help them with the travel costs to attend the finals. I acknowledge and thank the International Business Council of the Chamber of Commerce for all their hard work in making these awards possible. They have done a terrific job. I commend this report to the House.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, the opposition supports the announcement of these awards and acknowledges the winners. In all those who were involved behind each one of these enterprises, small or large, lies the very essence of what can and does make the Territory a place with huge potential. This potential, and the capacity of people properly supported, enables them to capitalise on our strategic advantage within the region.
I acknowledge the work of the Chamber of Commerce Northern Territory as well as the International Business Council. I had the opportunity the other night to attend their AGM. It was good to see a well attended gathering with that sense of purpose and vision and opportunity that is presented by being in the Territory. I commend the reappointed chair, Mark, to that position.
I would just like to mention the crocodile industry. I have had the good fortune in recent times to go through one of the crocodile farms. I was impressed with the operation and note that they are award winners. It is a fascinating industry. I was impressed to learn that the value of the leather being sent to Europe is the highest quality in the world. The demand is so strong that the capacity to meet adequate supply has resulted in an increase in the capacity to produce crocodiles in the Territory, which will result in a by-product, and an unusual by-product for an industry such as this, which is crocodile meat. At the moment, it is a challenge to add value to the meat. However, on my recent trip to Taiwan it was a surprise to the Taiwanese that there is this by-product. That is an interesting avenue which I will be further exploiting: to be able to find a good market for crocodile meat in Taiwan.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arts and Museums): Madam Speaker, one of the Territory’s most important industries, the Aboriginal visual arts and craft, is at a critical turning point in its history. On the one hand, as the federal minister, Senator George Brandis, noted a couple of months ago, Aboriginal ‘artists from the Northern Territory are now finding their feet in the international market’, and that ‘all Australians should be proud of how well indigenous art is doing nationally and internationally’. One the other hand, these same artists, and the art centres they operate, are in a dangerous limbo - a combination of the unintended consequences of the current federal intervention into the Northern Territory and the climate of an approaching federal election.
These factors have meant that there has been no action at the federal level of government on the recently concluded Senate inquiry into the Aboriginal visual arts and craft sector; an inquiry that urged important action for the industry.
As both sides of this parliament would be aware, wherever possible, I seek bipartisan solutions, and in this report to the Legislative Assembly, I also seek bipartisan support from both sides of politics at the federal level. It is perfectly clear that one of the greatest unintended consequences of the unilateral abolition of CDEP has been its dramatic impact on the most vibrant sector of Aboriginal enterprise, the Aboriginal visual arts and craft industry. It is clear to me the federal minister, Dr Sharman Stone, has been ill advised on this matter.
What is happening for the art centres is not a transition from welfare to work; it is the exact opposite. Hundreds of productive, economically valuable jobs are, in fact, being transitioned into inappropriate welfare-based activities. First, there should be an immediate intervention by her to ensure that all artists and art worker positions currently supported by CDEP are maintained, and their inclusion under a reformed CDEP as essential economic activities on our remote communities and regional towns. This would reflect one of the major recommendations of the recent Senate inquiry for a properly funded approach to support for employment at these art centres.
Following from this there should be a commitment by both sides of politics here and federally to the issues of funding the reform and expansion of the National Arts and Craft Industry Support scheme, which underpins the development of proper business planning, management and governance for our art centres. Similarly, for the Senate inquiry’s strong endorsement of a properly planned capital and infrastructure fund for the industry in the order of $25m over the next five years. On this issue, I draw attention to the promise by the current federal government of ABA funding to such infrastructure at the last election of $5m, which has yet to be realised, as well as the sum of $10m through the ABA that is being negotiated this year under the Northern Territory/Commonwealth Overarching Agreement which, again, seems to have been bogged down or forgotten.
Madam Speaker, we are talking here about the future of some 5000 Aboriginal visual artists and craft workers who are genuinely and productively involved in developing our regional economies as well as supplying non-welfare incomes to themselves and their families. This is the very stuff of bipartisanship in politics in the field of indigenous affairs. Members from this side of the Assembly, the opposition and our Independents have all been on record praising the Aboriginal visual arts and craft industry. There is similar bipartisan support at the federal level. Let us hope that, in the coming months, no matter who is successful in the coming election, such solid bipartisanship is translated into support for this great industry.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her report this morning. It sounds like there is absolute gloom and doom out there in Aboriginal visual arts and craft, and I do not believe that for a moment. I believe that Aboriginal arts and craft in the Northern Territory is going ahead in leaps and bounds. I do not believe for a moment that, with the inference, it is going to be falling into a great hole of disaster because people are not going to receive CDEP funding.
While I was in South Australia, I attended the Aboriginal Art and Cultural Centre in Ceduna and was able to find out about an exhibition a number of indigenous artists from across the north of South Australia were having at the Red Poles Gallery at McLaren Vale. I made a point of going to McLaren Vale to have a look at it because I know many of those artists. Let me tell you that those artists are not CDEP funded. They do their own art work; they put it through the Aboriginal cultural centre in Ceduna. Seven of those pieces of art were sold before the exhibition opened and all of them were well into the thousands mark, and that money was going to those artists. I do not believe for a moment that it is as gloom and doom as the minister is making out.
I am very supportive of indigenous visual arts and craft right throughout Australia, especially in the Territory because it is all different arts presented right throughout Australia, but I do not believe for a moment that it is the gloom and doom as the minister is saying. However, the minister has support from the CLP in developing it further.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I have a few thoughts on it. Minister, it is important that we sustain the art industry for Aboriginal people. That is most important. I believe we need to change the culture, the attitude, of the way the art industry works in Aboriginal areas. For too long, we have relied on CDEP, but times have moved on. It is 2007, and that may have been okay 20 years ago, but we need now to think about how we are going to get the art industry to function as it should if it were not indigenous. There is an art industry in non-indigenous areas that is successful and works without CDEP. What I am suggesting is that we need a change in culture. The minister should be providing the incentive and initiative, and saying to the Aboriginal art industry: ‘How can we do it without CDEP? What do we need to do without relying upon that type of employment?’ Surely, with the amount of money that is in the Aboriginal art industry, that should be employed to create real jobs.
Yes, we do support the indigenous art industry. Yes, we believe it is important for many of our people. However, we have to change the way we think. The art industry has to start thinking, ‘How can we support these people doing what they do now but in a different way so that they have the funds to make the industry viable?’. Make it the same as if I was an artist in town and non-indigenous: how do I go about my business?
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arts and Museums): Madam Speaker, I thank both members for their contributions. For the member for Katherine, it might pay in South Australia but if she is the shadow minister she should better inform herself and do some trips around the Northern Territory and talk to arts and craft centres where CDEP is a central part …
Mrs Miller: They are the same in South Australia. Pit Lands operates exactly the same.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I listened to you, member for Katherine. At least give me the courtesy of responding to your ill-informed comments about this; that CDEP is being gutted by this federal government. Its impact is going to be real. For both members, I say pick up the Senate inquiry report that was done where submissions were given by the industry, as well as us as government, to look at productive changes, to look at the governance and other operations of art centres. I did say in my report that through the art centres, as well as CDEP, there are artists who are supplying incomes to themselves and their families. But if you can use CDEP effectively as leverage to get full-time employment, that is a good thing. So, instead of standing up and making ill-informed comments about CDEP, you are better off informing yourself. Read the Senate inquiry and then you might be able to have a different outlook.
Mr VATSKALIS (Business and Economic Development): Madam Speaker, my Department of Business, Economic and Regional Development, DBERD, is currently working with indigenous organisations and businesses in East Arnhem to broker funding and support, assist existing and emerging businesses, support business growth, and provide strategic direction to generate commercial activity within the region.
Current DBERD clients are the Laynhapuy Homelands Association; the Yirrkala Dhanbul Community Association; Deltareef Pty Ltd; Nyinyikay Dha Wuba Cultural Experiences; Dhimurru; Miwatj Health Organisation; and Marngarr Community Council.
Major projects currently under way include: the establishment of the East Arnhem Tourist Hub, in partnership with Tourism NT and Yirrkala Dhanbul; organising visits by passengers from the Orion cruise ship; establishment of indigenous tourism businesses on homelands; major organisational restructures and establishment of commercial operations within Laynhapuy, Yirrkala Dhanbul, Miwatj Health, Dhimurru and Marngarr; and assistance to grow indigenous businesses and employment within the region, including Deltareef.
Specifically, DBERD has recently brokered funding from the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations for the establishment of an Indigenous Tourism and Business Hub. The hub is currently housed within Yirrkala Dhanbul Community Association and employs a local indigenous woman as hub coordinator to oversee its operation. The hub is designed to provide front and back office services, including accounting, marketing and administration of local indigenous small businesses to established and emerging indigenous businesses within the region, and market local indigenous businesses within the region domestically and abroad. DBERD continues to work towards securing further funding and providing support to the hub during its establishment. DBERD is also considering actively supporting the product developments required to help the hub get tourism-ready product to the market.
Working in consultation with government departments and local stakeholders, DBERD has brokered significant funding to assist existing and emerging businesses to grow in the region and to increase employment within the region. Over $1m has already been approved and another $1.3m is pending. This includes funding for training, feasibility studies, and business plans to assess the viability and appropriate planning of products which include: Marngarr Market Garden; Marngarr civil works project - maintenance of the East Arnhem Highway; Marngarr Nursery; establishment of a motel at Yirrkala; Deltareef Pty Ltd - business plan and consultancies to grow business and indigenous employment; Laynhapuy Homelands Stores; Laynhapuy Transport and Taxi Service; Bawaka Cultural Experiences; Nyinyikay Dha Wuba; and Buymar.
The Northern Territory government is hosting the third Indigenous Economic Development Forum, Partners and Pathways, through the DBERD and will be held on 14 to 15 November 2007, in Darwin. Building on the previous two forums, this forum will have an emphasis on doing business, creating business opportunities, building business partnerships, celebrating successes, and developing capacity in indigenous communities to participate in sustainable economic activity.
The forum has the generous support of a number of partners and sponsors including: the Yothu Yindi Foundation; Perkins; Alcan Gove, and GEMCO from the Arnhem Land region. Alcan and GEMCO will be presenting case studies of their indigenous employment programs. Alcan will talk about YNOTS, the YBE Nabalco Operator Training School; and Alert, Alcan Learning Education and Regional Training. GEMCO will be talking about indigenous training and employment principles and how this led to real jobs retention of those skilled workers. We are looking forward to this year’s forum and providing opportunities for people to come together from a diverse range of industries and backgrounds to share knowledge and experiences, and to explore opportunities including business partnerships to achieve sustainable economic outcomes for indigenous Territorians.
Significant work has been carried out with Tourism NT to promote the Northern Territory and the East Arnhem region through the media, television and print, and increase awareness of East Arnhem as a tourist destination. The promotions include coverage in more than a dozen printed publications over the last 12 months and featured on Channel 9’s Things to Try Before You Die and the SBS television series Nerds FC.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I am sorry, I had a bit of difficulty hearing much of the minister’s report. However, those matters I heard certainly sounded interesting. We thank you for your report and look forward to hearing from you again in relation to the broad range of matters that you discussed. This highlights some of the difficulties that the opposition maintains in relation to ministerial reports. I look forward to reading in the Hansard what the minister had to say, because I was unable to hear …
Dr Burns: You were mocking him; that is what you were doing. You have not learned.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: I do not know …
Dr Burns: Yes, you were, I saw you!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms CARNEY: I do not know what planet the minister is on. I genuinely had trouble hearing the minister, as I invariably do. I have trouble hearing a couple of members on the other side, and I have said that in the Chamber on numerous occasions.
In any event, I do look forward to reading the Hansard. That will provide me with the opportunity to go through the matters the minister discussed. He did traverse a number of matters. The Minister for Health, who always likes to chip in with his comments, probably identified a level of interest from the opposition arising from the minister’s traversing of a number of portfolios. I thank the minister and look forward to reading the Hansard.
Mr VATSKALIS (Business and Economic Development): Madam Speaker, I sympathise with Leader of the Opposition who cannot hear properly. She probably suffers from the same problem as the previous Leader of the Opposition, who could not understand my accent. I was not born here and, unfortunately, I will not lose my accent. Therefore, I suggest next time she tries harder to understand me. None of the other members have any problems understanding my accent. I am very happy to speak to her face-to-face because, obviously, she does not seem to have any problem when I speak to her face-to-face, despite my strong Greek accent.
Mr HENDERSON (Tourism): Madam Speaker, I would like to update the House on progress in developing the Northern Territory’s cruise shipping industry. I hope that members opposite will be able to hear what I have to say.
In late August, I was pleased to host a welcome function for the 2007 conference, an AGM of Cruise Downunder, the peak industry marketing body promoting Australia and the Pacific region as an international cruise shipping destination. The conference provided local organisers an opportunity to showcase Darwin as a vibrant harbour city, demonstrate our cruise strengths, and market the region as a desirable cruise ship destination. When the Territory last hosted this event in 2000, it attracted just 20 delegates. This year, we had over 85 delegates from Papua New Guinea, New Caledonia, Singapore, New Zealand, as well as Australia.
This stellar growth and interest in Darwin is reflected with the exciting developments in the cruise industry.
Conference delegates had the opportunity to hear two excellent international guest speakers, Darius Merhta, Director of Land Programs from Regent’s Seven Seas Cruises, one of the world’s major luxury cruise liner companies at the exclusive end of the market. In fact, the first port of call for Regent Seven Seas Mariner will be Darwin on 11 November 2007.
The other international speaker hosted to Darwin was Craig Milan, President of Royal Celebrity Tours and Senior Vice President Land Operations from Royal Caribbean Cruises, a company that operates 21 large ships and is one of the biggest cruise companies in the world.
In addition to the delegates learning more about the expectations of some of the more successful cruise ship companies in the world, I was also happy to learn from our visiting guests that they very much enjoyed their hosted visit around the Northern Territory, and are seriously looking at how they extend their pre- and post-touring, particularly for potential inclusion of Kakadu, the Red Centre and Aboriginal art trails.
It is estimated that cruise shipping had a direct and indirect impact on the Northern Territory economy of $8.6m in 2006-07, with over 11 000 passenger days, and 6700 crew days in the port of Darwin. We also have small luxury ships like Orion based here from April to September each year.
The first ship to arrive this season was the Pacific Princess on 3 October 2007. This is to be followed by the Holland America Lines ship Amsterdam on 31 October 2007.
My agency, Tourism NT, has been developing new strategies to take advantage of the cruise liners that do not currently visit our ports. Craig Milan’s company, Royal Caribbean Cruises, now includes Uluru as a pre- and post-tour option for passengers whilst visiting Sydney.
Last year, Tourism NT developed a new tour program and worked hard to convince Princess Tours in Seattle to include it within their program. The new Overland tour includes both Kakadu and Darwin as a new Ultimate Australia Tour. I am pleased to say we already have over 250 passengers booked from February to April 2008 on this brand new pre- or post-tour package.
In addition to these new visitors, we also have 750 passengers from the same cruise company booked on the Outback of Australia tour which includes one night in Uluru and one night in Alice Springs - a new record for this tour program. This is a fantastic result given that Princess Cruise Line docks in Sydney.
Facilities and infrastructure for cruising is moving ahead with the new $4.5m cruise terminal to open at the waterfront precinct in mid-2008. The new terminal will help attract even more cruise ships to Darwin by providing better passenger facilities and a more visually friendly drop-off and pick-up point. With most cruise lines expecting the provision of free shuttle services for the 2007-08 season, I have written to the Darwin City Council offering Territory government funding support of $25 000 and inviting the council to match government’s contribution to ensure the full cost of the service is covered. I am pleased to inform the House that the Lord Mayor, Gary Lambert, wrote to me advising that the funding for the 2007-08 cruising season was approved at their council meeting on 25 September 2007.
Free shuttles to the city for this year will be part of a smooth transition to presenting our new cruise terminal, which will be ready in time for the commencement of the 2008-09 cruise season. From the 2008-09 season and beyond, Tourism Top End is currently developing a new program of volunteers and ambassadors that will help direct cruise ship passengers to a range of transport options once they exit the new terminal; options that will include day tour coaches, taxis, private fee shuttles like those offered by Casuarina Square, or use the safe pedestrian access from Fort Hill Wharf via Hughes Street to the city. I thank Tourism Top End for their work on this initiative. For immobile or very elderly passengers alternative transfers will be arranged by the cruise ship companies.
Madam Speaker, I look forward to keeping the House informed on the developments in cruise ship visits and the huge potential we have to see Darwin continue to grow as an important cruising port in Northern Australia.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, it is good news about cruise shipping in the Northern Territory. It is great to see that the large passenger liners are being actively promoted and marketed into the harbour in Darwin, and that negotiations with large cruise companies to bring them into the Territory are continuing. Also, that the smaller cruise ship markets, the niche markets, are being actively promoted. The promotion of Darwin Harbour and the waterfront can only be good for tourism for the Top End, right across the Northern Territory, and the ongoing flow from there into Katherine and Alice Springs,.
Cruise ships appear to be flavour of the month again. The cruise holiday market seems to be booming. It is certainly making a comeback. It is great to see that Darwin Harbour and the Northern Territory is being actively promoted and marketed as a cruise destination. Thank you to the minister for his report.
Reports noted pursuant to standing orders.
RESIDENTIAL PARKS BILL
(Serial 77)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time. This bill is designed to fill a gap in legislation which should have been passed by government years ago. The bill simply states the rights and responsibilities of owners, managers and long-term residents of residential parks.
The Territory once had such legislation when the Residential Tenancies Act was reviewed and, after some lobbying from industry, the sections of the act which related to caravan parks was deleted. The lack of protection for long-term residents of caravan parks was highlighted after a number of complaints were received from residents of the now defunct Sundowner Caravan Park. The first complaints related to a sudden increase in rent without any prior notification. Overnight, the rent was increased by $10 per week for anyone who used their own washing machine. Other complaints related to the lack of notification by the owner of the park that the park was to be sold and that everyone would have to pack up and leave, even though many residents had been there for a long time.
The closure also highlighted problems with subtenancy arrangements where tenants had made private arrangements to sublet their sites without permission or notification from the owners. Another issue that arose is where tenants had built structures that were not approved by the owner of the park nor had building approval. Obviously, there needed to be a set of legislative rules that spelt out the rights and responsibilities of those residents, owners and managers in these parks.
To ascertain what owners, managers and residents thought, a survey was carried out for the majority of caravan parks in the NT. Most of the Northern Territory caravan parks were covered except for Timber Creek, Daly River, Borroloola and Uluru regions. I hand delivered survey forms to the caravan parks and, if there was no one in attendance, left them at the front door. A few were mailed on request. It should be noted that many caravan parks in the Northern Territory do not cater for long-term tenants, so it will probably be the case that owner/managers did not respond because the proposed legislation would not have affected them. However, many of these people running the parks did have caravan park experience so it was thought that they should have the opportunity to respond to the survey.
The survey found strong support for some form of legislative framework to cover people who live permanently in caravan parks as well as park owners. Although there were a few respondents who rejected this notion, the results overwhelmingly from residents and owner/managers supported legislative backing. It is from this survey and from looking at interstate legislation this bill has been developed.
The bill has been divided into a number of sections which are explained in more detail in the accompanying explanatory statement.
Part 1 deals with preliminary matters which includes definitions of terms used throughout the act. Part 2 relates to the Residential Parks Commissioner who is the same person as the Commissioner for Tenancies under the Residential Tenancies Act, and this section sets out his powers and responsibilities. Part 3 sets out matters relating to park rules, the setting up of residents committees, and the amendment of park rules.
Part 4 deals with the formation of residential park agreements. This is a key part of this act when read in relation to Part 5, which deals with the mutual rights and obligations of park owners and residents, and covers such matters as rents and charges, condition reports and bonds, terms of the agreement including the right to possession and quiet enjoyment, the obligations of both the park owner and residents, and rights of entry.
Part 6 relates to assignments and subtenancy agreements. This ensures there is a clear understanding of the rules in relation to assignment and subtenancy and avoids some of the difficulties that occurred at the Sundowner Caravan Park.
Part 7 details when residential park agreements can be terminated either by the park owner or the resident, and includes the role of the Commissioner of Residential Parks. This section also details what are the park owner’s rights in relation to abandoned property, including personal documents, and abandoned dwellings.
Part 8 covers the acquisition of the park or site. This part specifics the right of the new owner when dealing with a resident who has a residential park agreement. Part 9 covers the sale of a dwelling on a site, and makes clear both the residents’ rights and the owners’ rights.
Part 10 outlines dispute resolution proceedings, describing how either an owner or resident may apply to the commissioner where there is a dispute, or a breach of an agreement has occurred.
Part 11 relates to the serving of notices. Part 12 looks at various miscellaneous matters.
Part 13 deals with the Administrator’s powers to make regulations and prescribes what may be in those regulations, and Part 14 covers transitional matters.
Madam Speaker, as I said at the beginning, this bill fills a gap in legislation. It will now state clearly the rights and responsibilities of both residents and owners. It is not designed to hinder the rights of a park owner, but to clarify the rights of the owner whilst, at the same time, recognising that long-term residents also have rights and responsibilities. It is practical legislation designed to cover residential parks that have not been covered by the legislation since 1999 when the Residential Tenancies Act was passed. The act specifically leaves out caravan parks, and it was presumed from statements at that time and more recently, that government intended to introduce legislation to fix this anomaly. It has not done so, hence this legislation.
I hope the government will support this bill. If the government decides it will not support the bill when it comes up for debate next year, I hope it will introduce its own legislation and use some of the details found in this bill, as well as the results from the survey, in developing its own response to this gap in legislation. I note that a previous minister for Justice, Dr Toyne, wrote to me on 27 March 2006, saying that: ‘I can confirm that the issue of caravan parks is currently being examined and may result in law reform at some future stage’. I live in hope that something will happen.
As this bill will not be debated until April next year, there will be ample time for comments from industry and residents and I encourage those comments to come in.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill and the explanatory notes to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
The CLERK: Madam Speaker, I advise that pursuant to Standing Order 107, I received written advice from the Leader of the Opposition postponing the moving of the motion at Notice No 2 until the next General Business Day.
FIREARMS (PAINTBALL) AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 102)
Mr MILLS (Blain)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I withdraw this motion.
Motion agreed to.
BIRTHS, DEATHS AND MARRIAGES REGISTRATION AMENDMENT (KADEN) BILL
(Serial 105)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
At the outset, I wish to acknowledge Fiona and Craig who sit in the gallery on this very important occasion for them. I also acknowledge that, as a result of their courage, there are many across our country who have taken heart in the way that Fiona and Craig have responded to a personal tragedy. This is, until someone steps forward, something that is only whispered about in families. It has been illuminating for me to encounter such courage, but more so to now be a part of conversations - whether I visit family in Western Australia or they come and visit me, or at the markets, or talking to older members of my family. Out come stories of loss that have not been able to be resolved adequately. What is particularly surprising is those who are very old who still carry the unresolved issue of a child born prematurely.
It is not until we encounter it that we are forced to wonder how we respond to this matter. It has caused me to think, as others too who have had the experience of encountering it, that the legal system becomes an immense and distressing challenge and quite incapable, many times, to address matters of this nature. As someone who had been presented with the challenge, it was my resolve to endeavour to find a legislative solution.
At the outset, I have to say that our confidence as a community is largely misplaced when we place it in the legal system as the means of resolving our own personal challenges; that the capacity to resolve difficult issues always remains with the individual concerned, the family that support them and those who think about the matter. Once it falls into the hands of those who look at the rules that have been arrived at to govern our society, it becomes difficult. It is no wonder that it has been described from times past - many, in fact, 1000 years ago - to say that the letter of the law does not produce life. There is life in it, and we need to find the life in the law, to find the way through it so that we can bring resolution, restoration, and healing. We do not find that easily in the law. The law can easily be used to obstruct, block and provide the reasons why we cannot move forward, and then we stand behind it.
What I am proposing is an amendment to the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Bill 2007. I called it the Amendment Bill 2007 or the Kaden bill. I deliberately put the name Kaden in there so that a lost life is given reference and recognition, because the memory does not pass away, but the capacity to have it properly resolved is not easily found, not within Australia.
In a moment, I will go through the mechanics of the bill. I am sure there are going to be responses in time when government comes to attend to this second reading speech. They will surely find technical and legal difficulties - whilst understanding the heart of it - why we cannot perhaps go down this path. Somewhere there will be this argument that no other jurisdiction - which almost poses the suggestion that it is, therefore, impossible. Nothing is impossible, because other jurisdictions in other countries have found solutions to this. If there is a will there is a way.
What is required is a level of leadership, risk taking, challenge, cutting a new path. Why? Because we only have to ask in our own family circles; there are issues like this that have been unresolved. All the care can be provided within a family and all the support can be offered through the hospital system - and I will talk about that in a moment - and still there is the unresolved issue. The core of that is that, from the point of 20 weeks-plus born prematurely, the legal system we have legally and formally recognises a human being; 19 weeks and six days the opposite, not a human being and, therefore, described as hospital waste. That is the harsh reality of this measure. That is the challenge: how do we resolve that? This is the nature of the legal construct that we have. There are arguments and reasons for that. It will be argued that there has to be a cut-off time, but there could well be a way through this, a way to create a solution as other jurisdictions, not in this country, have found.
When Fiona and Craig came to see me only a short time after the loss of Kaden, the first thing they needed was someone to hear them. In one sense, it was unfortunate that that had to be found in my office. I was privileged to be cast in that role at that time, and I continue to honour that. As we all know with some great sadness, because of the legislative construction and the arbitrary determination of when a life is a life and when it is not, the hospital system, in all its grinding busy-ness and heavy workload, made a decision. Actions were influenced by that arbitrary cut-off point, and so they responded in that manner.
Legally and technically you can explain the result, but not in matters like this - not the impact that it has on the mother, whom I still believe, as anyone really would, gave birth and was told by the system: ‘No you have not’. As a result, there was no adequate support offered to the mother at that time. It was the most extraordinary case. I thought at that time: ‘Well, I have been a local member for eight years, I have not heard of this before. Perhaps it is a one-off’. What rocked me was that when this was made public, stories came in from around the country of the same thing; of mothers who had had to endure the indignity of a system that has made an arbitrary judgment as to whether a child is a child.
The first objective that was set - and I am happy to report has largely been achieved thanks to the tenacity of Fiona and Craig - that we felt was the most achievable objective, was to ensure that no other couple going into our hospital system has the same experience as Fiona and Craig. That led to an approach to the hospital board to register the issue, to register the complaint, explain the story, and to seek improvements in the policy of the hospital. It was not an easy matter. Organisational change is not an easy thing to achieve, but it has been achieved.
I understand that a policy - and it was a concession made by the government under the Minister for Health that there would be this opportunity. I acknowledge the Minister for Health’s assistance in allowing this discussion to occur. This discussion took some time and I understand that there were nine drafts before there was a satisfactory resolution as to the shape of the policy. I have a letter from the Royal Darwin Hospital Management Board signed by Colin McDonald, the Chairman. It came some time after the initial complaint was registered with that board. It says that after some time a recommendation will be made to the minister and the Manager of Royal Darwin Hospital under section 23 of the Hospital Management Boards Act. The board has recommended they note the enclosed draft policy and, if they respectively consider it appropriate, to take such steps to see that the draft policy is implemented.
That is an important step, and it was not an easy one to achieve. I acknowledge that important step. It has to be mentioned, though, that it was not really until another mother had a similar experience that was reported, before there was final closure on this aspect of our challenge. We only hope that the courage shown by Fiona and Craig and the account of another mother, and others who have spoken, have brought about organisational change.
I acknowledge it is very difficult for those who are working in the hospital system, but being difficult is no excuse for this level of hurt being incurred by a mother. I only trust that this step has now advanced to the stage where there will be better systems, there will be appropriate resourcing. I only had to look around at other hospitals to find that there was the capacity of other places to respond in a caring way. I say good on Fiona and Craig for persevering with this. I thank the minister and those under the minister for their efforts in bringing this part of this challenge to a close. We will continue to watch.
We go to the next challenge, and this one is seriously a challenge. If it is difficult to bring about organisational change within a hospital system. It is indicated in a letter from the chairman of the management board that these policies should be reflected through right across the Northern Territory, and so it should be. If it is difficult to achieve this level of change within an organisation such as a health system, how much more difficult is it to change the way we respond legislatively to these matters? Sitting underneath are a number of moral and ethical issues. I ask members to weigh these carefully and calmly in the presence of the issue itself: in the knowledge of human life as it is measured in the current system, the grief that is incurred by a mother who finds that our system says there is an arbitrary determination.
The bottom of this is formal recognition, the closure, the sense that a birth did occur, is legislatively backed, and in substance. That has many flow-on consequences. That is the issue. How can this be provided though? I know it will be argued there has to be a cut-off period and, in many senses, there needs to be. However, can a means be found whereby someone who chooses to have the premature birth properly recognised, if they see that it is important to them? That issue of choice - can they do that if they want that? If they have seen the foetus that is fully formed, can they ask for that to be properly recognised as a birth and a death?
My family is just going through, as they always seem to be going through, the family tree; it is growing ever larger, branches here and branches there. However, if there has been no birth, there has been no death formally, legally recognised. Any of the countless people across the country who have given birth prematurely will never have any of these children in their family tree legally and formally recognised. Is there a way that that can occur?
I propose a solution. I am pleased to report that there are other members in other parliaments who have heard what has happened in the Territory, have taken courage from Fiona and Craig, have heard the attempt at describing a way forward, and are also considering this. I would suggest, to be quite pragmatic, that it is going to be an extended discussion that we need to have within our community and across the country.
It rests on the issue of choice. Can we provide that mother who has given birth prematurely to a child before 20 weeks the choice? Can we give the Attorney-General the authority to issue a birth certificate and a death certificate? Can we? Can we do that? We are in a Legislative Assembly; we can legislate. If there are problems with this, which, of course, there are challenges that will be posed as there always are, there is nothing cut and dried about a legal argument, then perhaps still we could find a way through it. If there is a will, a way can be found. If there is no will, you will find a multitude of reasons why it cannot be achieved. That is a fact: if you have the will you can find the solution, and here it is.
Here is what I propose to be a solution. I am mindful of what I have just said, and I am prepared for it, but I will not be leaving this area. As I offer myself to my community at the next Territory election, I will continue to serve if that community chooses to have me stay in this Chamber. This issue will not go away if it is not responded to in a way that gives some constructive response, and opportunities for progress to be made. I will continue with it, among other things.
At the moment, there is no ability to make a registration - no ability whatsoever. I will say though, that the second offer that was made - and I will have to acknowledge that it is a response that has some merit; that the process that led to the changes in the policy ought to have been fully implemented and properly resourced. The other one was the offer of a commemorative certificate. I acknowledge the gesture and that that is fine. However, there still remains the unresolved grief resulting from the non-recognition. A commemorative certificate still does not capture the essence of saying ‘this is a human being born just like every one of us’. This one also died, so there is no legal birth certificate or death certificate. I do acknowledge the commemorative certificate, but it does not address the core issue here. That rests on the dignity of human life and the recognition of life. Anyone who has seen the letter that Fiona has sent will find it very difficult to say that that is not a human being. However, our legislation says that.
The events with the birth and the death of Kaden have shown how such a line in the sand – 20 weeks being set in concrete – can be inappropriate and quite hurtful to the family involved. This bill provides the opportunity, following the completion of certain paperwork by medical professionals and upon application within 60 days to the minister, for the birth and the death of a sub-20-week foetus to be formally recognised.
We need to acknowledge now, honourable members, that I made an attempt to bring this bill forward on urgency some time ago. The reason for that was that would have allowed me to debate this today, and for us, as a Chamber, to debate it today. Because it could not be brought on, as urgency was denied, then this bill, if successful ultimately, will not apply to Fiona and Craig because of the 60 days. It has been 199 days since Fiona gave birth. The result of not permitting urgency at that time is that this matter could not be brought to resolution in this Chamber today. This is a second reading speech which means it will sit on the Table for us to discuss at another time.
Fiona and Craig know this, as others do. However, the level of support indicates that people want this to continue for others. The bill extends no further than providing the possibility – an important point; it extends no further than providing the possibility. The bill sets two levels of application. If the miscarriage occurs under supervised care in the hospital, then the application by the parent needs to contain paperwork from the hospital certifying the miscarriage. If the miscarriage occurs outside of supervised medical care – let us say at home - then the medical professional will not only have to complete the certification but will also have to provide further documentation supporting the application, as another level that is required if miscarriage occurs at home. In both of these instances, the parents will need to make such an application within 60 days of the miscarriage.
It is an important point on the issue of choice; the onus rests on the parent - the choice of the parent. No one is compelling them; it is providing them with the choice, the opportunity to do so. I know that there would be many who would not take up the choice; they want to leave it be. However, what about those who want that choice? We respect the choice of others in these sorts of matters. We acknowledge the choice of others in these matters, those who make a choice concerning a life. However, what about those who have no choice? Can we not give them a choice? That is what this is about: choice. Authority and power determined and arrived at by proper consideration by members of a Legislative Assembly.
The completed application’s supporting documentation is to be provided to the Attorney-General for good reason. The Attorney-General could seek advice from the Chief Medical Officer in respect to the application for a decision – notice, choice and decision. Individual choice and a decision - power resting within the hands of people to make choices and to have decisions made; people who have been elected to represent and to make hard decisions. The decision to register the birth and death then rests with the Attorney-General.
I am not uncomfortable with the notion that we, being elected, need to carry a certain burden of responsibility and the capacity to make difficult decisions. These are difficult decisions, and rather than weigh them legislatively, they need to be weighed here. We will not be here forever in this Chamber and we can weigh these decisions, balance them and make a decision on matters such as this. Ultimately, someone makes a decision, but do we offload the decision to systems and organisations, committees and so on? I believe there is more decision-making in here on difficult things.
I stated before that this process means that parents need to choose whether they wish to seek registration. I say again, I do not believe everyone would; for those who have experienced this it would mean the world. The minister then chooses whether registration is appropriate and should be granted. This legislation goes no further than this and effects no other entitlements or activities. There are other things that could be drawn in this: yes, but what about this, what about that? A line needs to be drawn in the sand but it rests on this issue: can a mother choose if it is before 20 weeks? I would suggest it is appropriate that it is in the third trimester when the foetus is fully formed. Who is to say that is not a child? The decision to have it formally and legally recognised is the choice that a mother, if this bill is supported, can have supported.
As this is a private member’s bill, I urge members to support the bill. If you choose not to support this bill, I urge you to seek alternatives, other ways of approaching this. I would find it a spur to continue on if the response is ‘yes, but’. Let us see if we can find alternatives. The alternative that has been provided, a commemorative certificate, does not address the deeper issue.
In closing, I acknowledge, again, the leadership and courage shown by Fiona and Craig. I also acknowledge those who work in our hospital system, who have responded to this matter, made the time to see Craig and Fiona, shown that kindness, and have shown support. It is undoubtedly a difficult matter. It would be nice if there were no difficult matters to attend to. Sadly, it is a reality and the lot falls upon us at this time to weigh this and to consider it. I urge honourable members to support the bill. I say again, if not, please offer alternatives to amend the process. At the very least, support the intention of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Amendment (Kaden) Bill 2007.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Electoral Act in two areas: first, to allow for ballot paper position draws to be conducted at sites determined by the Electoral Commission; and second, to equalise the threshold for which election candidates can accept anonymous gifts.
As a small jurisdiction, Northern Territory politicians and election candidates are probably more open to scrutiny than their interstate counterparts. People are much more likely to see a Territory politician out and about than they would a federal or state minister. They rub shoulders with politicians in the streets, in the markets, stop and talk to us in the mall, and even consider throwing their hats in the ring as a candidate. It is important that our electoral system matches this openness by encouraging people to participate as much as possible, and the amendments in this bill reflect that openness.
I will now turn to the details of the bill. These are commonsense amendments. The first part amends the site where the Electoral Commission can conduct the draw for candidates’ positions on a ballot paper. At the moment, the Electoral Act requires the Electoral Commission to undertake this draw in their Darwin office. While this may be appropriate for Top End seats, it discriminates against electorates outside Darwin. Constituents of that electorate, local media and even the candidates have to travel to Darwin if they wish to be present at the draw. The recent by-election in Greatorex was a classic example. The draws on the ballot paper were done in Darwin whereas commonsense would say they should have been done in Alice Springs. I have a long history of trying to pull down the Berrimah Line. Conducting non-Darwin electoral draws in Darwin is simply unfair and discourages people in regions from participating in this important part of the electoral process.
I am very pleased to see the Electoral Commission agrees with me. In their recent report on the 2005 General Election, the Commission wrote on page 36:
My amendment simply implements this recommendation by allowing the Electoral Commission to choose the site of the draw most suitable to the electorate involved; a commonsense amendment and one members should be able to support.
The second part of the bill refers to the threshold amount of gifts that can be given anonymously to candidates during an election. This bill makes changes to the monetary amount in three sections of the act: sections 191, 193 and 197. At the moment, section 191 requires a candidate’s reporting agent to provide the Electoral Commission with details of gifts given to a candidate in an election. This information must include the name and address of each donor, along with other details of the gift. However, the name and address, date and amount is not required if the total amount of their gift, or gifts if they have made more than one to the same candidate, is less than $200.
Section 193 concerns a donor who makes the gift to a candidate in an election. If the total amount of their gift or gifts is $200 or more, they must inform the Electoral Commission of their name, address, amount of the gift and date it was gifted. Section 197 concerns registered parties or candidates receiving the anonymous gifts. For registered parties - and this is where it seems unfair - they must not accept a gift to the value of $1000 or more unless the receiver knows the name and address of the donor. For candidates not with registered parties, the same information is required, except the prescribed amount is far less, $200. So these three sections are saying that only anonymous gifts of less than $200 can be given to a non-party candidate. For all these sections, the bill increases the amount to $1000, which is the same as registered party candidates.
At the moment, the act discriminates against non-party candidates. Registered parties, large or small, do have substantial resources, particularly those which federal affiliations. Why should parties be able to receive anonymous gifts up to $1000 when Independents or non-party candidates can only accept gifts anonymously if they are less than $200? Independents play a vital part in a political system. I will say that again so you all hear it: Independents play a vital part in our political system. There are numerous examples of legislation that the government has implemented on the bills or policies that I have proposed, or the other Independent member in this House has proposed. Just yesterday, for instance, we saw the government pass the Bail Amendment Act which was based on a bill that I had introduced previously.
We also have confirmation from Peter Murphy, an advisor for the CLP government, who said recently on Stateline: ‘I think the era of Independent politicians in the Territory has really arrived. You have Loraine Braham and Gerry Wood in the Top End and, between the two of them, they are far more effective than the official opposition, the CLP’. Madam Speaker, you could not get a finer endorsement.
Mr Henderson: Can you say that again, I missed that? Can you read that quote again?
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mrs BRAHAM: Would you like me to read that again? ‘I think the era of Independent politicians in the Territory has really arrived. You have Loraine Braham and Gerry Wood in the Top End and, between the two of them, they are far more effective than the official opposition, the CLP’. Isn’t that a fine endorsement?
As further support to these amendments, the federal government recently changed the Commonwealth Electoral Act to increase the disclosure threshold from $1500 to $10 000. I am certainly not suggesting the higher amount, but it does show there are moves to increase the threshold of anonymous donations. Again, I refer to the Electoral Commission’s report, which mentioned these changes to the Commonwealth legislation and recommended amendment to the Financial Disclosure Provisions. I quote the report on page 38:
All I am asking is that non-party candidates be subject to the same conditions and be given the same rights as those from registered parties.
Our nation takes pride in our democratic ideals. It is important that our electoral processes allow the public every opportunity to participate. This may be standing as a candidate, or providing financial assistance to someone they support as a candidate. Sometimes, the process can frustrate this participation. Drawing ballot positions thousands of kilometres away can be frustrating to locals. Not being able to give a substantial anonymous donation can be another. The amendments in this bill aim to overcome this frustration by very simple changes that do not undermine or threaten the electoral process. Indeed, as the independent Electoral Commission recommendations suggest, these simple changes aim to make the process equitable for everyone.
I have also introduced changes and will be debating another amendment concerning the Financial Disclosure Provisions requiring party returns to be categorised in the same way as required to be submitted by unendorsed candidates. These changes complement each other in ensuring equity in the Northern Territory’s Electoral Act and system.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members, and I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move - That this parliament end its current restrictions on freedom of the media and open up its processes so as to provide unfettered public scrutiny by amending standing orders to allow television, radio and Internet providers to record and rebroadcast all public parliamentary proceedings.
The motion is short and members will not at all be surprised to know that the points I make in support of it will be relatively brief. One does not need to go on when we have a straightforward motion to debate.
The bottom line is this: other parliaments in this country provide for extensive broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings. In the Northern Territory, we have a situation where television cameras can come in here every day at 2 pm and then pack up at 3 pm. They are unable to broadcast any other part of this parliament. I know that there have been, under you leadership I believe, Madam Speaker, improvements made to Internet access. I know we have a radio broadcast during Question Time as well. However, is it not curious that the people who sit in this place who would regard themselves, I am sure, as small ‘d’ democrats cannot bring themselves, or are unable to get to the point where they would support extensive and broader broadcasting of the proceedings of this parliament?
As I said in radio interviews last night, you cannot, on the one hand, say as a politician that what happens in the parliament is incredibly important - and I think each and every one of us (a) holds that view, and (b) expresses that view to a number of other people - you cannot hold that view and then say: ‘But we are only going to allow broadcasting of a very small part of it’.
The parliament is open to the people, and how wonderful it is to see some people here in the parliament. We do not always have people in the parliament. My parliamentary colleagues and I often look up see empty galleries - almost at any time day or night. I do not, for a moment, accept that every person in the Northern Territory is as interested in politics or the political process as the people who sit in this Chamber or, indeed, work in this building.
However, is it not desirable that we extend the broadcasting to enable people the opportunity to see more of us? There are robust debates in this place. Territorians may wish to see footage and hear the contents of debates. What we are increasingly seeing is the orchestration of Question Time in which government ministers, for the most part, go out of their way not to answer questions, and to ask themselves dorothy dixers so that they can peddle the party line. That is, unfortunately, Territory politics at present.
I believe Territorians would be interested to see my colleague, the member for Blain, give his heartfelt and emotional speech in relation to the Kaden bill which he introduced only 20 minutes ago. I believe Territorians would be very interested to see and hear that as it occurs. I am not sure that Question Time is the best we can do for young people who see politicians often yelling at each other on television sets during Question Time. When those young people go to school their teachers probably say to them: ‘Do not yell at each other’. Yet, politicians yell at each other a lot of the time in this very building during Question Time. That is what is broadcast to our fellow Territorians.
I think we, the parliament of the Northern Territory, can do better. We should modernise. We should bring ourselves into the 21st century and allow and encourage maximum access. Politicians always talk about ‘accountability and transparency’ - words found in political handbook 101. Those words are important. We should not hide from broadcasts in any form; we should be as open as possible. Literally opening the doors to the building is significant but, because I am an eternal optimist, I think we can do better. The time has come for Territorians to expect that we do better. This is not our building. It is the building of the people of the Northern Territory, and what a fine building it is, and what important work is done in this building.
How unfortunate it is that our fellow Territorians only see that snapshot that occurs between 2 pm and 3 pm, and then we all hear the click of the button at one minute to three and the tapes rewinding and the camera people start to pack up their stuff, Question Time finishes, and we all go back to debating issues. Question Time is not a debate. Question Time is predominantly, under this government, an opportunity for government members to showcase themselves.
I am a strong believer in the democratic process. I am aspirational when it comes to my fellow Territorians and what I believe is their desire to engage with the political process. We as a parliament will serve them well, and it is an important symbolic message in any event, if we as a parliament say, all right, we are going to extend broadcasting.
In reply, and I may be doing him a disservice, but I expect the Leader of Government Business to say: ‘We have a committee for this, and the committee should discuss it’. Our parliamentary committees are confidential. I would like to hear, because this is a House of debate, the views of many people on the other side. I am sure people sitting in the gallery and people who may even be listening on the internal government broadcast - parliament is broadcast within the public service - and others would like to hear from members on the other side as to their views about opening up the parliament and improving the way we, as a group, communicate with our fellow Territorians.
Sure, this could be on an agenda for the Standing Orders Committee, but there is certainly nothing wrong or objectionable in raising it the way we do on this, the opposition’s General Business Day. Sadly, it is forgotten regularly in this place, but we should not forget that this is a House of debate. I hope that this is debated. I look forward to the response from government. I note, Madam Speaker, you have made comments this morning, and I do not propose to go into them as a courtesy to you. The government, by dint of its numbers, will determine whether this motion succeeds or fails. Please accept this in the spirit in which it is intended.
There is one final point and that is scrutiny. Transparency and accountability are words found in political handbook 101. Scrutiny is often another word. I suggest both sides of politics in this Chamber and, indeed others, talk, I am sure, about the need to be scrutinised. What an effective way to be scrutinised by allowing our fellow Territorians the opportunity to see footage and to hear what goes on in this Chamber and have the opportunity to re-broadcast what goes on, throughout the Northern Territory.
Citizens of the Northern Territory get the politicians they deserve. We have an obligation to encourage them to learn more about the political process, for those who are interested, and to encourage them to scrutinise us. I say that not in relation to a party-party suggestion, but us as politicians. There are 25 of us who serve in this Chamber and, notwithstanding our political differences, I have no doubt that each and every person sitting here takes their role very seriously indeed. There is a difference between we, as a group, saying we take our responsibility seriously, but not taking that further by saying we will, as a group, allow ourselves to be scrutinised in the best way possible - ways that complement what we already have. We should be encouraging further scrutiny of us as a group and, indeed, it follows as individuals, then it gets into a party-party contest.
This is about democracy. It is about ensuring that what goes on here is seen and heard. Although there are differences in other jurisdictions, broadcasting is something that other jurisdictions have looked at in the past. We can do better in encouraging people to join the political process. I look forward to hearing the government’s comments. I hope that there are more speakers than just the Leader of Government Business. I feel certain that others will hope there are more speakers as well. Madam Speaker, I commend the motion.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I join the Leader of the Opposition in welcoming the public to Parliament House for what is an interesting and important debate. It is good to see members of the public here to see the Northern Territory parliament in action.
The Leader of the Opposition quite rightly said the parliament should be open to the people and we, as members of parliament, should be and are accountable to the people we represent. It is interesting that this motion has come on today. The Leader of the Opposition is always good with the theatrics of debate and putting a particular point of view. However, this issue was not just an issue for the opposition and the Leader of the Opposition until the Northern Territory Press Club had a letter published in the NT News on Saturday. This is an opposition …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: … that is so bereft of ideas, Madam Speaker …
Ms Carney interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: ... so bereft of ideas and policy that the parliamentary agenda is, to a large part, set by the headlines in the Northern Territory News and, in this case, a letter from the Northern Territory Press Club to the Northern Territory News.
Okay, the Leader of the Opposition has brought a motion to this parliament as a result of reading a letter in the NT News. It certainly was not an issue for the opposition prior to that, otherwise we would have had many debates, over many years. So bereft of policy are they, they wait until the paper is published to decide what they are going to run on any given day.
The Leader of the Opposition and members opposite are chameleons on this subject. They are absolute chameleons. Depending on which side of the Chamber they sit determines the colour and the position that they have on this debate. Absolute chameleons. The Leader of the Opposition would have much more credibility in the position that she just put - and I will go to the points of substance in a minute - if she stood up and said: ‘We support this and in supporting this, I have to admit, and my party admits, that the position that we had in government for 27 years was wrong …
Ms Carney interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, Leader of the Opposition!
Mr HENDERSON: … when there was no democracy in terms of opening the parliament up …
Ms Carney: No democracy.
Mr HENDERSON: … to bringing the cameras into parliament. She talked about - I made some notes - the orchestration of Question Time, and predominantly a showcase Question Time, a showcase for government ministers to strut their stuff. Well, there is a lot less strutting of stuff going on under this Labor administration than under CLP administrations. On average, we have more than doubled the number of questions that are asked and answered in Question Time in the eight years that we have been in government. That is purely a mathematical exercise. I am sure if we asked the Table Office to do some research it would show demonstrably that Question Time is much more accountable. Ministers are much more accountable today in terms of the number of questions without notice that get answered in this House than in the halcyon days of the CLP.
However, let us get back to the substance of the motion, and let us deal with the issues that the Leader of the Opposition raised.
We do have television cameras in here for Question Time. The reality is, as technology evolves - and I do not think the Leader of the Opposition is aware of this, but under your own determination at the beginning of the 2006 calendar year, parliament and debates are screened over the Internet. You can sit in Timbuktu, Lisbon, Wadeye, downtown Malak or Karama, or in Leningrad, and you can actually hear, if you want to, the Leader of the Opposition and I debating this motion today. To say that people of the Territory do not and cannot access broadcasting of parliament is wrong ...
Ms Carney: I did not say that.
Mr HENDERSON: You did, and I have the notes. You talked about the public service can hear the broadcast of parliament. Those were your words, Leader of the Opposition …
Ms Carney: It is also what ...
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms Carney: I said what Madam Speaker had done, you dill.
Mr HENDERSON: I am not sensitive, but I am sensitive for the parliament, and I ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, Leader of the Opposition you will withdraw!
Ms CARNEY: I withdraw the word dill, Madam Speaker …
Mr Henderson: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Ms CARNEY: … if you are so offended by it.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, order!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr HENDERSON: It does not offend me, Madam Speaker, but I think it offends the dignity of parliament.
We can all read the transcript. The Leader of the Opposition was trying to paint a case that parliament was not broadcast. In fact, it is. It is broadcast, it is streamed over the Internet. With the advent of the digital recording of everything that is said in this House with Hansard - I am not sure what it is, but the full Hansard transcript of debates in this House are up on the Internet within two or three hours of the Assembly rising each day. The Hansard people do a wonderful job. So, for the Leader of the Opposition to paint a picture that somehow this government, this oppressive Labor government, is trying to close down public access to debates in this parliament, and access to the accountability of members of parliament, is patently wrong. I urge the Leader of the Opposition to go to the Department of Legislative Assembly’s website and click on the icon that allows for the streaming of the parliamentary broadcast.
Madam Speaker, I propose to move an amendment to the Leader of the Opposition’s motion. The amendment will be, in part, to refer this issue to the Standing Orders Committee. I advise people in the gallery, and people listening over the Internet - if there are many people listening over the Internet to debate - the reason why we have to refer this issue to the Standing Orders Committee is because the issues around the broadcasting of parliament are a standing order of this parliament. The only way that standing orders can be amended is as a result of a motion to the parliament to amend the standing orders. It is totally appropriate that the Standing Orders Committee, which the opposition and Independents participate in, considers this issue and reports to parliament the recommendations of the Standing Orders Committee.
The Leader of the Opposition said that is a terrible process because parliamentary committees are confidential. It is the first time I have heard her deride committee proceedings. Debate within the parliamentary committee is confidential, but the report the committee publishes is not confidential; it is a public document. If members on that committee wish to dissent from any of the recommendations in the report, they can table a dissenting document that is a public document and open for debate in this parliament. Therefore, it is not some confidential, secret parliamentarians’ process; it is an open process. If individual members or party members on that committee do not agree with the recommendations of the majority, they can have a dissenting statement.
In essence, as Leader of Government Business, and the members of this side of the House, we are totally open for the Standing Orders Committee to consider the issues raised.
Madam Speaker, I formally move an amendment now that is a tad lengthy, but will be circulated to members. I move that all words after ‘that’ be omitted and insert in their stead:
The Assembly:
1. notes that after 27 years of CLP in 2001 there was no:
(a) television access to Question Time by media;
(g) introduced the modern budgetary transparency obligations on the government.
3. notes that in recent times technological capacities have improved to enable new functions to be introduced including the streaming of Hansard on the Internet; and
(a) the modern capabilities available to the parliament;
media outlets;
In speaking to the amendment, I am sure that all honourable members of this House would agree that a considered process in determining further evolution of how we provide access to the people of the Northern Territory to their parliament is totally appropriate. It is not just at the whim without a full consideration of a range of issues. That is why we have the Standing Orders Committee.
I also point out to the Leader of the Opposition that this is an issue that all parliaments are coming to grips with. Different parliaments are at different stages as to what is broadcast, how it is broadcast, and standing orders for allowing proceedings to be distributed, disseminated and broadcast through television and other media.
It is not as if we can pick up off the shelf a comprehensive set of standing orders that are consistent with modern parliamentary practice. Every jurisdiction is evolving due to individual circumstances. I would like to point out a quick assessment of what other parliaments are doing around Australia, given what we are doing here. I am advised that in the parliaments of South Australia and Tasmania television cameras are not allowed in to directly broadcast Question Time; there is no Internet streaming; and essentially they are moving to look at ‘where to from here’.
In the Northern Territory, at the moment for people who are really interested, if they cannot listen to a debate, and they want to know what their local member of parliament has said in contribution to any debate in this House, the fact is that within two hours of words being spoken in this Chamber, people can hop on to the Internet, go to the Hansard and read exactly what the member for Wanguri said in relation to this motion.
That is technology that was not even contemplated as much as 10 or 15 years ago. When I entered parliament in 1999, I do not think Hansard was up on the Internet, and members had an allowance - I think each member was allowed eight copies of the hard copy Hansard and we would identify eight people in our constituency or our local branch who were interested in Hansard and the parliament. We would mail big books to them that they would get some three months after the debate had actually occurred in the House. That is how quickly times have moved in making parliament accountable and open to the people of the Northern Territory whom we service. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition; we do serve very humbly and with a great deal of pride in the representation of our electorates that we all perform. For the Leader of the Opposition to try to paint a picture that somehow it is secret pollies business and nobody can get access to it, is patently wrong.
I commend the amended motion to the House, which, quite appropriately, asks for the Standing Orders Committee to consider these issues in detail. We would certainly look to take submissions from members of the public and media regarding the terms of reference. We will consider all of the issues as per the reference to the Standing Orders Committee and report to this House with recommendations. The House then has its own destiny in its own hands. If members of the opposition or Independents do not agree with the majority recommendations in the report, they can move a dissenting report and put their own motions to the House in the future.
I commend the amended motion. I thank the Press Club of the Northern Territory for putting this issue on the agenda. If they had not put it on the agenda we would not be debating it today.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, it was interesting to hear the Leader of Government Business think that this was just dreamed up last Friday. He forgets that we only have General Business Day every three months or so. We do have things in the pipeline that we want to bring up and discuss. For the Leader of Government Business to suggest that it was a whim of last night or the night before is a little rich ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mrs MILLER: Madam Speaker, this government has talked about being open and accountable ever since 2001 - open and accountable ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mrs MILLER: They are a bit titchy already and I have not even started.
We are all very privileged to be in this House. We have been elected by the constituents in our own electorates to represent them and their needs to the best of our ability. I do not see a problem in us coming into this House and having a broadcast at any time. What do we have to hide? I watch the theatrics that go on here in Question Time and, let us face it, some days it is a darn circus. It really is a circus. It is almost like …
Mr Kiely: We know who the clown is.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mrs MILLER: The member for Sanderson likes to have his little say so he gets his name or his face on the television. Some of the stuff that happens here at Question Time is just inexcusable. Do you know why it happens? Because the cameras are in here. That is why people behave the way they do. I have watched it. There are some members across the Chamber from me who do not smile unless there are cameras in here. It is really quite entertaining. I noticed it the first few weeks I was sitting in this parliament and I wondered what the heck was going. Why are they smiling? I suddenly realised there were cameras on them.
I would like to see cameras in this House at any time there is interesting debate. That would be useful for our constituents to hear or see. The minister said that there is plenty of broadcasting through the Internet. Not everyone has the Internet. Public servants do, our electorate officers do, and many people have access to the Internet. But I want people to think about the elderly people in our electorates who do not have the Internet and have no desire to have it.
I will use this as an example. One dear lady in my constituency always refers to herself as my ‘oldest constituent’ when she rings me. It is 88-year-old Bonnie Stevens. Dear Bonnie in Katherine. Bonnie is an avid listener of parliament. She loves to listen to the federal parliament and she has always done so. I have to say I could not think of anything less interesting to be listening to all the time, but Bonnie does and there must be hundreds of others out there in the same situation. If she could see this on television, she would definitely watch it. I do not see any reason why television should be prevented from broadcasting live inside this Chamber to our constituents and those who choose to sit in front of a television to watch us ...
Ms Carney: And rebroadcast it.
Mrs MILLER: And rebroadcast it, absolutely. She listens to the radio. She certainly would not know how to turn on a computer and would not know how to trawl the Net to find Hansard. For the Leader of Government Business to say that within two hours it is on the Internet that is not meeting the needs of many of our loyal supporters in the community.
I will go back to Question Time again. The minute those cameras are here, it is a showcase for government. I love it - a question without notice - hang on! Whoever is going to respond to it has to pick up the written response because it is not without notice. That is a big farce. It is a farce and it shows up when people are fossicking around looking for their question without notice and looking for their response without notice, which they just happen to have sitting there: so and so was going to ask that question and here is the answer.
Why can we not have broadcasting of our debates within this Chamber for public scrutiny? Why can’t we? This morning was a perfect example of something that is highly emotive, but I can assure you that there are many people across the Northern Territory who would relate to the debate by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition this morning. There would be not too many people sitting in this House who have not been affected in some way by the same issues that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition raised this morning. It is important for us to show our constituents that we are open and accountable, and that we are accessible to the people of the Northern Territory.
One of the really interesting things is the hypocrisy once people move from this side of the House to that side of the House and vice versa. I heard the Leader of Government Business talk about all the wonderful things that the Labor government has done since they came to power in 2001. It is interesting that, in 1997, when the Chief Minister was sitting on this side of the House, she had a different opinion. I will quote the Chief Minister, as the Leader of the Opposition, on 26 November 1997, from an adjournment debate:
She continued:
That was when the Chief Minister was the Leader of Opposition. Also, going back to 1997 - beg my pardon, Madam Speaker, she was not the Leader of the Opposition at the time; she was a member of the opposition. The Leader of the Opposition, that was the former member for Barkly, on that same day talked about current broadcasting of additional answers to questions. She moved that:
It appears to me that when you are in government you get a little titchy about having broadcasts within this Assembly and, when you are in opposition, you can see the benefit of it. That is how it would appear to me, Madam Speaker, so I find it really interesting that there is a reluctance of government looking at live broadcasting within this building.
I believe with the theatrics, let us face it, as the Leader of the Opposition said, it is a very robust House of debate. That is a nice polite word. Sometimes I think it gets a little too passionate and uncontrollable in the debate. I try to remind myself before I open my mouth that as I stand in this House to represent people who have elected me, I do not say things that I would not like my grandchildren to be sitting in the gallery and listening to me say. Morally, we should be thinking along the lines of our children and our grandchildren. If we do not want them to hear us behaving in the manner that we do in this House, we should try to visualise them sitting up there and listening to us. It is extremely difficult to behave in an unruly manner in this place, and then walk out and say to our children: ‘Don’t do as I do, do as I say’. We need to be setting an example here.
One of the things we need to be doing is encouraging young people to become interested in the process of this Assembly and the way we perform in here. Having live broadcasts of our debates, and of adjournments, where they can see us in a different aspect rather than Question Time, I believe is extremely important. For government to say that we do not need to have television here during important debates is wrong. I believe we are preventing an opportunity for younger people to see how debate is carried out on developing legislation which, of course, determines how they behave and how they live in the Northern Territory.
I believe that scrutiny and democracy - all of those things - should be emanating from this Assembly. We should be accountable to our constituents. It is also interesting that the opposition brought forward a code of conduct. Anything we do in opposition, of course, is seen as being not worthy of too much discussion. It is looked upon with disgust at most times. However, we brought forward a code of conduct which government opposed, saying they would bring it in when they won. Where is their code of conduct? It is nowhere to be seen. The opposition brought forward whistleblowers’ protection legislation which was opposed by the government, saying something will come in the future - we have seen nothing. The opposition has worked hard to get accountability and to lift standards in this Chamber in regards to scrutiny. Therefore, to suggest what we have introduced today is a frolic from nowhere is without substance.
Madam Speaker, there are things that the opposition is doing which we would like to have seen broadcast. There must be a reason why government is saying: ‘No, we do not particularly like having television cameras in the Assembly’. That must be the reason why they have introduced this raft of amendments which I will leave for the Leader of the Opposition to respond to. Of course, everybody will be looking at the time. I have much more to say on this subject but I need to talk about the amended motion which is likely to take a lot of time because there is a page of it. Maybe we should do this after lunch? Is it a convenient time?
Madam SPEAKER: Would you like to continue your remarks after the luncheon adjournment?
Mrs MILLER: Yes, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: I will note that.
Debate suspended.
Continued from earlier this day.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I am a pretty reasonable woman and, despite it being back to the bad old days of the Martin Labor government amending and completely turning motions on their heads because it does not suit them, turning motions away from raising issues about the Martin government’s failures, to look back to things you want to celebrate, I recognise that changes were needed and that some of those brought about by Labor were good. However, it does not stop here.
I am speaking to the amendments now. I will go through the points. Paragraph 1(a) regarding television access to Question Time by the media: yes, that is a good thing that the Labor government has brought in, but there should be more television during debate and adjournments, and that is why we put the motion this morning.
Paragraph 1(b) was the Estimates Committee process. The idea of having estimates to scrutinise departments is a very good idea, but it could be more open and accountable. Each year, at the end of the estimates process we talk about this. We have suggested changes to ensure reduced hours for public servants having to sit there from 8.30 am until 11.30 pm, and lengthening the days of the committee sitting. That was amongst a raft of other recommendations that we have proposed over time. Yes, the Estimates Committee is a great idea, but it certainly needs review.
Paragraph 1(c) was freedom of information. Having seen the paperwork that comes out of FOI requests, the FOI laws are a bit of a token effort. They are daunting in the length of time taken to process these requests. How much, minister, does it cost for each request? People are certainly not encouraged to apply for freedom of information.
Paragraph 1(d) in your amendment was resources for Independent members of the Legislative Assembly. I welcome that; it is fantastic. The Independent members certainly need to have resources available to them in their research and preparation, and I certainly welcome that.
Provision of explanatory materials, which is paragraph 1(e), is also really good. It helps us to understand, without going to lengthy briefings, the intent of the legislation, and it gives us an opportunity to be able to question before the legislation is presented to the House.
Paragraph 1(f) was to require government to provide accurate and transparent budget papers. This was listed in the amendments to our motion, and it was saying that it was implemented by Labor after they came into government in 2001. Madam Speaker, that is offensive. The Leader of Government Business was suggesting that the CLP, when in government, provided 27 years of inaccurate budget papers. That is not only very offensive, but it is slanderous.
Paragraph 1(g) was, ‘independent body to administer Territory elections’. Leader of Government Business, were you suggesting that there were issues untoward in previous elections, and did you have an issue when you were elected to parliament? I do not think so. I think you were happy to be here.
Madam Speaker, paragraph 2(f) of the amendment which notes what the Labor government has implemented since 2001, has, ‘introduced regional sittings of the Legislative Assembly to Alice Springs’. I remind members of this House that it was not possible to hold the sittings in Alice Springs before the previous government, the CLP, built the convention centre in Alice Springs. There was nowhere to accommodate parliamentary sittings prior to that so, naturally, that has been a new initiative. Well done to all the fantastic LA staff and support people whose efforts allow this transfer of sittings to happen. It is a good idea and it does allow it to happen. However, all the credit has been taken by this government for having the sittings there. What they have to realise is there was not a facility there prior to the convention centre.
The role of government is to look forward and introduce new and innovative ways of getting the best outcomes for the citizens that they serve. I found it quite intriguing that today, during our General Business Day, government has introduced this lengthy amendment to what was a reasonable request to end its current restrictions on the media, to open up the processes.
As I have said, I think I am a pretty decent woman and I do not want to dwell on things like the missing whistleblowers’ protection, although I must ask myself on this matter: what does the government have to hide? I also do not want to spend too much time on the issue of the code of conduct, not seen, yet heavily opposed by those opposite when we put forward an option. I want to make a comment on that, too. There was a gentleman sitting in the visitors gallery today who asked to speak to me at lunchtime. I did not know the gentleman at all, but he asked me about a code of conduct ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Katherine, your time has expired.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Speaker, I move that the member for Katherine be granted an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mrs MILLER: Madam Speaker, I met this gentleman in the hall and he asked me if members of parliament had to have a drug test before they came into parliament. My response was, ‘No’. He also asked me if we were tested for alcohol before we came into parliament at any time, after any …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition, and the amendment before the Chair, is in regard to the broadcast of Assembly proceedings. We have just granted the member for Katherine an extension of time, which is a parliamentary indulgence, to conclude her remarks to the motion and the amendment before the Chair. She is now off in a flight of fancy about drug and alcohol testing members of parliament that has absolutely nothing to do with the motion and the amendment before the Chair, which is in regards to the broadcasting of parliament. I urge you to get the member for Katherine back on to the motion and the amendment, or I should move a further amendment that the member no longer be heard because we have a lot of business to be concluded in the House today.
Mrs MILLER: Madam Speaker, may I speak to the point of order?
Madam SPEAKER: Speaking to the point of order.
Mrs MILLER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I had just that one very small digression. I am responding to the Leader of Government Business’ amendment that he put forward to our motion this morning. I am responding to that, and I have addressed that in what I have said.
Mr Henderson: It does not mention drug testing.
Madam SPEAKER: Please pause. Member for Katherine, the point of order is one which is quite correct; it does not seem to be very relevant. However, I will indulge you for a very short period of time. Your comments on this will want to be very fast, and then move back to the amendment or the motion.
Mrs MILLER: Certainly, Madam Speaker. The Leader of Government Business was very distinct and direct in what he put down as the Labor Party’s objectives since they came to power in 2001, and that is what I am speaking about. I also do not want to spend too much time on the fact that, according to the Labor Party, the world began in 2001, everything bad happened as a result of the of the Country Liberal Party, and the Labor Party can do no wrong.
In respect to the amendment put forward by the member for Wanguri, I move that all words after ‘the Assembly’ be omitted and insert in their place:
(a) what, if any, adjustments are needed to the physical infrastructure, above and beyond the current building upgrade, to provide video and/or audio recording of all public proceedings of the Territory parliament and its committees;
(c) what, if any, effect this would have on the effective functioning of the Legislative Assembly and its committees;
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker, in regard to the procedural way this House deals with motions before the Chair. We had the initial motion proposed by the Leader of the Opposition which is on the Notice Paper and was circulated. I, as Leader of Government Business, have an amendment before the Chair. Those two questions have not been dealt with. Now, the member for Katherine is seeking to amend her own party’s motion that was proposed initially ...
Mrs Miller: No, I am seeking to amend your amendment.
Mr HENDERSON: There is no comprehension from the other side of the House as to what on earth they are doing with this. The member for Katherine is trying, essentially, to amend the Leader of the Opposition’s motion …
Mrs Miller: No, I am amending the Leader of Government Business’ motion.
Mr HENDERSON: … is causing a lot of confusion to this side of the House. I ask that if you are going to allow this amendment to the amendment, which is actually amending her own Leader of the Opposition’s initial motion, that that amendment to the amendment be circulated to members of this House so we can understand which amendment she is proposing to the initial motion as moved by the Leader of the Opposition. They have had all lunchtime to do this. I assume, if we are going to consider this amendment, that it has been typed up and circulated. We have not seen it. We have granted an extension of time, and there seems to be a lot of confusion going on in the opposition ranks as to exactly what they do want out of the initial motion as proposed by the Leader of the Opposition.
Madam SPEAKER: I am going to seek advice. I need to find out whether you can amend a proposed amendment.
Mrs Miller: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Do you have it in writing, member for Katherine?
Mrs MILLER: Yes, I do.
Madam SPEAKER: Can you please read it out?
Mrs MILLER: Certainly. Madam Speaker, in respect to the amendment put forward by the member for Wanguri, I move that all words after ‘the Assembly’ be omitted and insert in their place:
(a) what, if any, adjustments are needed to the physical infrastructure, above and beyond the current building upgrade, to provide video and/or audio recording of all public proceedings of the Territory parliament and its committees;
Madam SPEAKER: I will allow the motion. Can you just make sure it is distributed immediately and get copies, particularly one for the Leader of Government Business and for the parliamentary staff?
Mrs MILLER: Certainly.
Mr Henderson: You just wiped out all of your leader’s initial motion.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! Please continue.
Mrs MILLER: Madam Speaker, I am sure there is enough there for the Leader of Government Business to digest in his response because we have now an amendment to his amendment to our motion.
Mr Henderson: It obliterates your leader’s initial motion.
Mrs MILLER: We know exactly what we are doing over here. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, can I speak to the amended amendment?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, you can.
Mr Wood: When do I get a chance, Madam Speaker?
Mr Henderson: You go first and I will get a copy of the amendment.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, you are speaking to the original motion, the amended motion, and the amended, amended motion.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I will talk to the lot. It is a bit like having a hamburger with the lot. I would like to say some general things about this. I must admit I thought this would be a good debate. When I saw the Leader of Government Business bring in his political swing to it, I thought, gee, maybe I should move an amendment to the amendment. But there has now been another amendment. I do not feel like bringing another amendment. If I was going to bring an amendment, Madam Speaker, I tell you what it would be, because this is the ridiculousness of it. This is a good subject to talk about but I think someone should have asked: ‘Should we change the colour of the carpet in the Chamber?’ So, I move that the colour of the carpet in the Chamber be changed to blue.
The CLP had been in power for 27 years and during that time (a) it never once changed the carpet; (b) deliberately tried to stop members of the public walking on this carpet; (c) required overseas carpet cleaners to sign AWAs; (d) continually carpeted the opposition; (e) removed any decisions about the carpet to the Darwin Carpet Authority known as the DCA, but we as the ALP …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order; Madam Speaker! There is the initial motion. There is the amendment moved by me, and the amendment to the amendment moved by the member for Katherine. None of those questions before the Chair go to the issue of the colour of the carpet. The member for Nelson is being extraordinarily frivolous. There is a lot of business before the Chair and motions on the Notice Paper, a number of which come from the member for Nelson.
I urge you get the member for Nelson back to the questions before the Chair so we can deal with this issue and move on with the serious business of the House instead of the theatrical grandstanding from the member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: May I speak to the point of order?
Madam SPEAKER: Very briefly, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, I am explaining what I said at the beginning: I expected this debate to be bipartisan. What I am doing is taking, to some extent, the mickey out of what the Leader of Government Business has done by introducing something into this debate that really should not have been introduced. We are talking about a serious issue, but you introduced party politics into something that I am saying …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, I have heard enough now. In relation to …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Resume your seat, member for Nelson. Order! Member for Nelson, I will allow you to continue with your remarks, but I would like you to come to the point and stick with the motion and the two amendments as much as possible.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, the motion also includes a point that the Leader of Government Business put in his amendment, which notes that ‘after 27 years of CLP …’. Straightaway, he introduced a political argument into this debate. What I was saying …
Mr Henderson: It is called the truth.
Mr WOOD: Once again, you see? What I was doing by this so-called theatrics was pointing out that you can take some things to a point which are ridiculous.
This is a good debate about whether we should broadcast and televise parliament. This so-called amendment was copying what you had tried to do, and putting it in a way to show you that your method of approaching this debate has turned into a political debate when it should not have. All I was saying is if you want to have a debate about whether the carpet should be changed to blue or whether we should be having televised sittings of parliament, it was something that really should not have been turned into a political debate. That is what I did. All I did was basically copy what you had, and I was being cynical about it.
You have turned it into this sort of debate and I am having a dig at it. There is nothing wrong with that in parliamentary debate. I will finish where I was when I said, copying your No 2, that we as the CLP support changing carpet colours. We believe that carpet colours should be protected by the UN convention on colour. We recommend carpets should only be cleaned using organic solvents and condemn the CLP because we have nothing better to do, state our opposition to green because people know it is not really representative of what we stand for. That is the joke behind this, Madam Speaker.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! It is about time the member for Nelson declared his Coalition National Party membership of the CLP.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Please continue.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, it is a bit sad that a serious debate on whether we should have the right to allow television, radio and Internet providers to record and rebroadcast all public parliamentary proceedings, which should have a bipartisan debate, was turned into a political debate simply because of that amendment.
When I have a go at it, you all jump up and down and squeal. That is exactly what that was about. You do not have to laugh; I do not care too much about that. The idea was show the hypocrisy of what we are doing when we should have been discussing the basic philosophy of what this debate is about.
I support the original motion because television, radio and Internet providers should be able to record and broadcast all public parliamentary proceedings. I have always been of that belief, long before the Press Club wrote its letter the other day. If this parliament is open to the public, then it should be broadcast to the public.
As for the member for Wanguri, he obviously thinks that ordinary workers live with a computer because you cannot stream parliamentary proceedings to someone who is sitting on a tractor or driving a truck. You cannot hear it. I always listened to Question Time when I was driving a tractor around the rural area doing slashing, but that is all I could do. I could not listen to parliamentary debates and a television does not sit on the front of my tractor. You said you can stream it on the Internet. The only way you are going to stream it on the Internet is with a computer. If people do not buy a computer, they cannot hear parliament. Parliament should be broadcast all the time ...
Members interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Well, you said it is streamed. That is your argument.
A member interjecting.
Mr WOOD: That is not much good if you do not have a computer next to you. If you want to hear parliament, and you are sitting on a tractor or you are out in the garden or somewhere, you are not going to carry a computer around in your backpack ...
Mr Henderson: Unless this parliament is going to have its own radio station and broadcast, I do not know how you are going to do it!
Mr WOOD: I agree with the motion that is before us. I believe it is a good motion. This debate could have been short and sweet if the Leader of Government Business had said we basically support the philosophy behind what the Leader of the Opposition is putting forward. Your mate said we would like to refer this to the Standing Orders Committee, and I would happily support the Leader of Government Business’ paragraph 4 where he requests the Standing Orders Committee to examine this. I hope it does not take as long as it did when I tried to get IT improvements in this House. That is another matter. I will support paragraph 4 put forward by the government. That is all I needed to do.
You introduced the politics to it, and I do not believe you needed to do that. We could have had a good bipartisan debate about this, and I believe that is what is needed. I introduced that silly thing about the colour of the carpet because it is in the same realm that we should have a debate. We do not need to go down the path of party politics. For the member for Karama to go on about the National Party and stuff, well, she just misses the point ...
Ms Lawrie: No, I do not.
Mr WOOD: Yes, you do. The other thing is, if the Press Club is also promoting this, I would like to say to the press that I believe one thing they could do in return is to ensure that all editorials in all newspapers in the Northern Territory are signed by the person who writes the editorials. When I am required to write a letter to the paper, I am required to sign it. When I stand in this parliament, they know who I am; my name will be on the television. However, when newspaper editors write editorials in the newspaper, they write them anonymously. I believe that if they want this House to broadcast all the time it is in session, then we could do a deal where they ensure their side of the bargain was that all editorials are signed off by the person who writes that editorial.
You have to remember that it is a very easy thing for people who write anonymously who are not elected. When I write something, or I stand up in here, it is recorded and people know what I say, and they can boo me or cheer me for whatever I write. When you see editorials in papers and you do not know who wrote it, those people are not responsible to anyone. I believe it is only fair that the people who write those editorials should sign their names.
Madam Speaker, I support the original motion. I support paragraph 4 of the amendment; I believe that is good. My complaint was that this debate, which is a good debate, it is worthy of a debate in this parliament, should be had. I am just disappointed that the element of politics came into it. It was unnecessary and actually spoiled this debate. If you can see some of the agro that occurred during this debate, it was unnecessary, and I believe we should have done better than that.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I will talk to the Leader of Government Business’s amendment, and then I will talk to our amendment. I begin, though, in relation to amendment 4 from the member for Nelson. I am not sure that the colour of the carpet needs to be changed, member for Nelson, but you make your point, and make it reasonably well in any event.
In relation to the government’s amended motion, it is interesting, and I guess to some extent this was what the member for Nelson was referring to. This motion started this morning as item No 6 on the Notice Paper and it consumes five or six lines. We now have bits of paper everywhere because this government did not want to have a fair dinkum debate.
We obviously do not support paragraphs 1, 2 and 3. Is paragraph 4 arguably supportable? Arguably, it is. We put our amendments. The member for Katherine put the amendments for sound reasons. We appreciate that the government’s amendment was probably done in haste, but we were concerned that there was no time line, implicit or contained, in the amendment. We see that as a deficiency. We make our point in relation to costs; we think that is an important point as well.
Most of us know that there needs to be an assessment of what, if any, adjustments are needed to the physical infrastructure of this building. I am sure the Leader of Government Business knows that. The other amendments contained in paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) speak for themselves.
It was unfortunate that government saw fit to politicise this. In a sense it highlights why our initial motion should be agreed to, because the shenanigans – and let us be honest, the shenanigans - of the government could be observed by anyone who wanted to observe it. We can match, in some respects, the government’s mischievous and, may I say, somewhat offensive remarks contained in paragraph 1, in particular, and paragraph 2. We can go down that path. If you want to get political, I will give you a taste.
In 1993, Brian Ede, one of the former Leaders of the Opposition talked about Labor Party policy, whistleblowers’ legislation, and code of conduct for ministers. Maggie Hickey had a bit to say about whistleblowers’ legislation and code of conduct for ministers. The Chief Minister, when in opposition - next Labor Opposition Leader off the mark – had a bit to say about whistleblowers’ legislation, code of conduct for ministers, and so on. She also had a bit to say about misuse of Question Time, reforming standing orders, asserting that the primary role of the Legislative Assembly is to make laws for the good of the people. She went on to say in her Good Governance paper that:
I feel certain that the member for Fannie Bay meant that when it was written.
If we, as a parliament, want to improve things for the people we represent then we need to have sensible discussions. What the government has done is serve up a really quite scandalous and offensive and, may I say, juvenile - although we are talking about the Leader of Government Business and if the hat fits, etcetera - response to a motion that was brought in good faith. I know that most members on the other side - not all - resent it almost to their core when members of the opposition question them, challenge them, and put alternatives forward. That is the role we play and we take that role very seriously.
I know what is going to happen with the motion. The government’s motion will get up by dint of its numbers. That is unfortunate in the sense that it is likely that this very issue of broadcast and rebroadcasting will be delayed. We are concerned in relation to the amendment that there is no time frame. I do not think that is unreasonable. In any event, I suggest that if it ends up before the Standing Orders Committee, then so be it. I feel confident that you, Madam Speaker, will have an active role to play.
To the extent that we tried and something may come of it, I do not think that we can be entirely disappointed. With those comments, Madam Speaker, I conclude.
Madam SPEAKER: We have three motions before the Chair. The first is the original motion from the Leader of the Opposition; the second is the motion from the Leader of Government Business, which is an amendment to the original motion; then there is an amendment to the amendment as moved by the member for Katherine. The process is we move the amendment to the amendment first. The question is that the motion as put by the member for Katherine be agreed to.
Motion negatived.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that the motion as put by the Leader of Government Business be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the motion, as amended, be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move – That the Assembly -
(1) condemn the Martin Labor government for its failure to address rising rates of personal crime across the Territory;
The intention of the motion is very clear. It is not surprising that the opposition brings it, given the release of the crime statistics and, indeed, what has occurred in the northern suburbs of Darwin. In each of our communities, our constituents talk to us and, of course, we have eyes and ears, about what has occurred in their community and that crime rates are increasing.
I will deal with parts of the motion. We say get the police force as a whole to full strength and keep it there. That implies building in a bit of fat, especially given the current attrition rate which, last time I looked, was something in the order of 8% or thereabouts. You need to get extras where they are needed and adjust this establishment or full strength figure accordingly, as additional positions once created to be in a place substantively means that the establishment figures as a whole rise by that amount. In other words, get it to full strength, keep it there, and build in the capacity so that when police officers leave, whether it is permanently, or they are on recreation leave and so on, you do not want to have the numbers fall even below establishment, as we have seen around the Territory,.
In relation to providing additional police vehicles in each of the sectors of Darwin, Palmerston and across the Territory - which includes additional police which we have called for as part of our 2006 budget reply – it speaks for itself. I invite the Chief Minister to revisit our budget reply in which we were very clear about including additional police for the additional police vehicles in each of the relevant sectors. We need additional men and women in uniform. Members will recall that, in fact, we even costed it in our 2006 budget reply. The addition of those police officers will lift the overall establishment figures for those four sectors in Darwin by about 32 on our calculations.
Third, provide the known need - and it is a well known need - for additional police in Alice Springs. As I have consistently said, we are advised that 20 is the mark that would be appreciated by officers as well as the general public in Alice Springs. The addition of the 20 will lift the overall establishment figures for the Territory by 20 as well.
Fourth, through addressing the attrition rate, which I have touched on, it does imply and will necessitate more police provided to the force as a whole. One does not need to be especially clever to work that one out.
Fifth, when the number of police needed in all other areas across the Territory is identified - and that occurs and what needs to be done will be done by this government - the opposition will be the first to support such an increase in these areas. This will mean additional police to the force, which the opposition supports. So get it to full strength and keep it there. You have to do something about your attrition rate. We do need additional police for the police vehicles per sector as per our 2006 budget reply, which we costed. The number of additional police officers was 32. An additional 20 police in Alice Springs will also add to the overall establishment numbers. I repeat that when this government delivers what needs to be delivered, we will be the first to support the delivery of increases in these areas because it will mean additional police and all of us support that.
Mr Deputy Speaker, had the government picked up our proposal for additional police cars and the associated increase in police men and women in 2006, then we would not, perhaps, be in the situation we are in now. Maybe the Chief Minister should have chosen another minister to be Police minister, as she has not demonstrated to any Territorian what her vision is to build capacity and numbers in our Territory police force. I am not sure whether the Chief Minister supports extra police vehicles in each of the sectors of Darwin and Palmerston, and across the Territory. I look forward to hearing from her when she replies to this motion.
In relation to the addition of police patrols, my advice is that it has not changed over a period of about 20 years. This government, in the motion just debated, was at pains to say the CLP did not do this and did not do that, ‘But by jingoes, when we came to government, look at all the things we did’. Would you not think that they might say in relation to police: ‘The number of police cars per sector has not changed for 20 years and we are a government, we have lots of money and we are going to fix that’? Alas, this government and its many Police ministers have refused to even tackle it.
There is a somewhat mischievous suggestion that the opposition is looking to take police from elsewhere in the Territory and put them in Alice Springs and not increase the overall number of police in the Territory to meet the need. It is, with the greatest respect to those peddling it, an implausible position when looking at the motion’s intent and what has been said in this parliament and, in particular, our replies to the 2006 budget.
Let us cut to the chase. The Chief Minister has been at the helm since 2001. She has made a number of promises and I will deal with the line ‘200 extra police on the beat’ in due course. However, you would have to say on the basis of the government released crime statistics that more police are needed. I expect the Chief Minister to bag the CLP, talk about O’Sullivan, and go down the line that her predecessor did in suggesting that there are 200 extra police on the beat.
We remember when the language changed - and there are plenty of glossies around ‘200 extra police on the beat is what Labor is going to provide’. Then the language changed to ‘200 extra personnel’ and so on. It is mischievous in the extreme to be that slippery and disingenuous in looking after our fellow Territorians and providing them with the sort of protection they need, viz what happened in the northern suburbs on the weekend; however, it is certainly mischievous in the extreme to maintain the position that all has been done and that is the end of the matter.
What we do see is the Chief Minister, on occasion when pushed in parliament, say: ‘Oh, more needs to be done’. Well, the government was not saying ‘more needs to be done’ when the former minister for Police was talking ad nauseum about 200 extra police provided by this government. The government and various ministers - and we have had three Police ministers - really do not have anywhere to go. The people of our regional centres and Darwin are looking at them for leadership and no leadership is being provided.
The government has misled the people of the Northern Territory. There have been volumes of brochures shoved into people’s letterboxes about 200 extra police on the beat. The ‘beat’ part has been dropped from the language altogether because that was not delivered, and it is dishonest to suggest that they have been. If we have all of the extra police on the beat, we ask a straightforward question: where are they? Where are the extra patrol units on our streets? A quick look at any Darwin or Alice Springs roster from a few years ago still shows that there is the same number of police in the patrol group as there were 10, 15, 20 years ago, as I have indicated. When government says it has ‘police on the beat’, people expect to see police on the beat keeping their streets safe. They are not seeing it under this government.
The point I made last year was that, across the Territory, there are only 30 more general duties positions than there were five years ago. That is the information the opposition has received. I invite the Chief Minister to contradict it if she believes that that is not the case. The Martin government has taken ‘on the beat’ to mean specialised sections, including the Drug Squad, the Bureau of Criminal Intelligence, and units like the Domestic Violence Unit. A BCI officer or Drug Squad officer is not an officer ‘on the beat’ - government’s words not ours - and the government consistently tries to suggest that additional officers in these other important units are on the beat. They are not and people have stopped swallowing the line, in our view.
The second aspect of the fairy tale is the numbers. The former minister admitted that there was no way that the police were going to make an extra 200 as promised by the end of 2006. We wonder, and I invite the Chief Minister to advise in her response, how many extras are going to be there by the end of 2007? She should have that information available and I invite her to provide it and table it if necessary.
In the 2002 annual report, the number of constables was 535. In the last annual report, the number of constables was 669. That means that the numbers of constables have gone up by 134 in that period. The former Police minister claimed that the next recruit squad of 52 will fill the gap, but it will not. The police force continues a very high attrition rate, losing between 120 to 130 people a year, based on our information. It is more than six months until the middle of next year and 52 is not even half of the annual attrition rate. The former minister did not reach his target at the end of last year, and this Police minister will not reach the target by the end of this year.
Last year, due to a significant shortage of operational police officers in many regions of the Northern Territory, four police sergeants were ordered to serve at Tennant Creek. Last year, Alice Springs lost close to 30 officers and our advice is that only seven were being replaced from last year’s squad, and only a handful have gone down this year. Government consistently counts the 24 or so school-based constables in order to bolster the numbers. Those school-based constables should not be included in government numbers.
At pages 43 and 44 of the Police annual report 2002, the Police Commissioner reported that response time targets for picking up 000 calls was not met because of staffing issues in the call centre, and because of the extra 10 113 emergency calls. I am sorry; I will correct that it was not in the 2002 annual report. I believe it was in the last annual report. Emergency calls skyrocketed and the government is not meeting call response targets, and difficulties continue with the communications at the Alice Springs Police Station. Indeed, I got a pretty angry call from a constituent only a few days ago in relation to that.
If there are an extra 200 police available, why is the Police Commissioner reporting that staffing issues are a problem in telephone response times? Second, if the community is so much safer, why has the number of emergency calls gone up by over 10 000 or by about 25%?
According to the 2001-02 Police annual report, the police force had 164 executive and administrative staff working for it. In the last annual report, there were 217 executive and administrative staff working for the Police, Fire and Emergency Services – that was an increase of 32%. According to our calculations, the department has gone from seven executives to 13 executives in that time.
According to the annual report in the area of criminal investigations, the police dedicated 17 000 hours, or 2125 days, less to investigations than they budgeted for. That equals 5.82 years of police work that was not done last year alone.
However you look at it, this government has failed to ensure that the people of the Northern Territory have the numbers of police that they expect and deserve.
For the past couple of years, as I have said, government has told the community that these 200 extra police would be ‘on the beat’. As I have said in previous debate, the term ‘on the beat’ is understood by the average person to mean ‘on the street’. Interestingly, government seems less enthusiastic about using the term ‘on the beat’ these days than they did only a few months ago. We suspect that the reason for that is because they are not there, and government knows full well it cannot - as the previous Police minister knew he could not - deliver the 200 extra police on the beat which was promised by the government, and that is why they started to fudge the language.
The government should be condemned, as the motion outlines, as it is very clear that more police are needed. However you consider this debate, this Police minister, her predecessor, and others have failed. What makes it very concerning, however, is the way the government continues to fudge the language. All of us, as local members, listen to our constituents ringing in concerned about lack of response times. Not for a moment do we blame the police for this; it is a resourcing problem. There is no doubt that this government must do more. Resourcing our police service is not just an issue in the Territory. We know that it is competitive. That is why a government has to look to increasingly creative and innovative ways to get police men and women to serve in the Territory.
People feel safe when they see police officers on the beat. Government knows that. That is why they were at pains to assure everyone prior to the last election that they would deliver 200 extra police on the beat. It sounds good, doesn’t it? Our job is to show Territorians where this government has failed and they certainly have failed when it comes to this promise. Who would have thought that with the additional funds, $1.1bn a year, that this government would not be able to fulfil a promise such as that?
The condemnation that the government deserves ranges across a number of areas. The most recent crime statistics speak for themselves, and we asked questions about it yesterday. The effect of what the Chief Minister said in one of her responses was that the more police you have the more likelihood there is of crime occurring. That is just one thing she mucked up. Another one she mucked up was inviting me to talk about property crime. We ran out of time. I am very happy to talk about property crime, and it is regrettable that we ran out of time yesterday because the Chief Minister clearly does not read her own crime statistics. If she did she would not be as cocky as she is in relation to property crime.
The facts are that since the June quarter 2004 to the current June quarter, property crime has risen from 4780 offences to 5223, or nearly 10%. Crimes against the person, over the same period, have risen by 64%. The Chief Minister and her colleagues like to spin because that is the way they govern in the Northern Territory. You cannot spin your own figures when anyone can access them and when, if they are understood and even graphed, you will see an upward trend.
What do we hear from the Chief Minister as a result of the mayhem in some northern suburbs of Darwin on the weekend? ‘Oh yes, there is more to do’. Well, the people in the northern suburbs are getting sick and tired of hearing that line. She said it at the last election, and the Chief Minister has been at pains to say it pretty much ever since. As we discussed in Question Time yesterday, the Attorney-General in October 2006 introduced in this parliament anti-gang laws which were passed. As I said in Question Time yesterday, according to the government’s own words, this was the stuff that was going to fix all of the gang problems, it was going to be an effective tool - and on and on went the spin from this government. Twelve months on, have there been any inroads in the northern suburbs of Darwin, let us say? No. That is why we saw what happened on the weekend. Yesterday, in essence, the Chief Minister said: ‘Oh yes, there is a bit more to do’. Well there certainly is. That is why the Chief Minister and her government need to be condemned.
Territorians want to see their government acting and reacting in very positive ways. They want to see long-term solutions. When the former Police minister launched another mobile van, last year I think it was, he said this is going to fix things. I am not sure that is a view he would still hold. Therefore, instead of lurching from crisis to crisis, spinning out a media release, trying to get your head on the telly saying: ‘Oh we care and there is more to do’, we demand, as Territorians demand of this government, action and we ask the government not to lurch from crisis to crisis. We want strategies and plans.
In terms of paragraph 2(b) of the motion today, for instance, where are the Chief Minister’s plans to reduce the attrition rate? She made herself Police minister; there was a fair bit of fanfare about that. Have we heard from the Chief Minister what her plans are to reduce the attrition rate in the Northern Territory? No, we have not heard any. Have we had a statement in the parliament about that? No. Have we heard the Chief Minister’s comments in relation to bringing and keeping the Northern Territory Police Force at establishment, factoring in the increased officers needed for the patrols and putting extra police in Alice Springs? No. In fact, quite strangely, we have heard pretty much nothing from the Chief Minister for a very long time.
I know she likes to talk about other things and she does get a bit defensive when we talk about crime in the parliament because she would rather (a) not deal with it, and (b) pretend that it is just not there. Well, it is there and the government’s own crime figures tell all and sundry that quarter-on-quarter, for instance, June 2006 compared with June 2007, violent crime rates are up in Darwin by 88.5% and are trending upwards.
There is no wonder that residents of Darwin and others across the Territory feel unsafe. This is a time, based on the calls that we received in our office on Monday morning, when people are calling for action. The Police minister in response will say: ‘What have we heard from the CLP? We have not heard anything from them’. In fact, you have. You have heard constructive suggestions pretty much all the way through. Mounted police in Alice Springs is another example. That is needed. I do understand, however, that mounted police are going to become permanent.
We have talked about additional patrols per sector. You howled us down. We even costed it in the budget reply in 2006. I am not sure that Labor ever did anything like that when they were in opposition. However, I digress. The Chief Minister will stand up and will be, as is usually the case, insulting, patronising and, if she has had a bad day, which she may have had because her colleagues might be at it again, she might be vitriolic.
The facts speak for themselves. It is a pity that with $1.1bn extra per year in the budget since 2001, this government simply does not direct sufficient resources. Has government directed more resources than the CLP? Yes, they did. You want to know why? Because they receive an extra $1.1bn every year. We expect the line from the Chief Minister. They serve it up and we will hit it back.
Any government worth their salt would have invested in health, education, police, etcetera. That is the job of government, not just to do spin, slither away when things become too tricky, and come into this parliament and say there is more to do. Nor is it to issue media releases like the one Chief Minister issued yesterday, which, in essence, is a repeat of so many other media releases issued by her former Police minister colleagues. They must, on their computer system up there, member for Blain, have the ‘Whoops, bad crimes stats’ media release and do the cutting and pasting and stick it all together.
The Chief Minister has talked about repeat offenders. We have not heard too much about that, so that is a new on. Someone has come up with something. That is encouraging, but we want it to be better than legislation brought into the Chamber that is flawed, which was created only for the intention of spinning away from a problem. We, like everyone else in the Territory, really do want to see improvements.
I will be the first to applaud government if we see the consistent improvements if our constituents no longer ring our offices distressed and upset at what has happened to their house, their car, their son, their daughter. In this regard, for instance, I received an e-mail from my electorate office only a couple of days ago saying that one of my constituent’s has a son who has been assaulted three times by the same other young boy. These kids are about 16. Other kids have been bashing this kid up. My constituent told me that he went to the police station to report it and it took him, according to him, six hours in the police station making complaints. If it is taking that long - and I am relying only on what this man has told me - then that is not good enough. People want to go the police station and report crimes, and they want the matter dealt with.
Clearly, our police men and women are very good at what they do and they work tremendously hard, but the buck stops with government. Even today, in the Northern Territory News there was a letter to the editor from a partner of a police officer saying that this police officer is just working an enormous amount of overtime, and he is one of hundreds. I have said here before, and I will say it again: we live in a small jurisdiction. We have friends who are police officers. We know how dedicated and professional they are. We also know, because they tell us because they are our friends, not because we are CLP or opposition. They tell us because they have been friends for years. They tell us about the problems they experience. It is for that reason that we bring this motion.
The government should be condemned. We call on the Chief Minister to get the numbers up and improve them further. We want to hear about her plans for the attrition rate. We want the increase of police vehicles in each sector. We want the extra 20 police that are clearly needed and long called for in Alice Springs. We want to know where the 200 extra police on the beat have gone. And, if 200 have not been delivered - and maybe this Police minister might be the first one to actually be honest about it - then how many have been? Where are they? Is it expected that additional numbers will be provided by this government?
Mr Deputy Speaker, accordingly, I move the motion, and I look forward to hearing from the Chief Minister and the member for Blain.
Ms MARTIN (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Mr Deputy Speaker, I listened carefully to the Opposition Leader’s and Police spokesperson’s arguments today. One particular issue has occurred to me. I did some checking while the Opposition Leader was speaking, and there were many comments in there about ‘I am advised’, or ‘we think that’. I say to the Opposition Leader, we are happy to give you briefings. We checked – there have been no requests to me for any briefings about contemporary facts and figures. I do not think there were any requests to the previous Police minister; we have checked that. Also, we do not think there was any request of the previous Police minister, the Leader of Government Business.
So we are looking at a time in well over two years, when I think that the Opposition Leader has been Police spokesperson, where she has not ever sought a general police briefing on any of the issues. The reference in the speech was, ‘well, if you check the rosters’. This debate deserves more accuracy than those ad hoc speculative arrangements that the Opposition Leader seems to rely on.
I say again to the Opposition Leader: seek a briefing. I am very happy to offer a briefing. The previous Police minister would have done the same and the previous minister as well. It is important that, if we are going to have informed debates in this House - and we have just spent a couple of hours of the House’s time talking about how this debate needs to be broadcast to the world - this debate needs to be well informed as a first point. I do not know how you function as an opposition unless you get those briefings, unless you say: ‘Okay, let us look at the facts and figures here’, and do it in a briefing situation.
I have had experience in opposition. We sought briefings constantly. We are open to briefings and often have to chase you down to ask if you want a briefing on this or that The Opposition Leader can look shifty in her chair, but it is actually a very serious issue. I am genuinely saying, to listen to half-an-hour from the Opposition Leader where the references are not contemporary - because she has not chosen to get a briefing in the last couple of months from me as Police minister, or the previous Police minister, or the previous one before that - is very disappointing. It lacks a real commitment to either her job or presenting a factual story about what is happening, and that is very disappointing. I put on the record now, if the Opposition Leader would like a briefing on any of those aspects that she has raised during debate today, just ask. Just ask, because we will be very forthcoming on all those kind of briefings.
I have to deal with this issue the Opposition Leader raised about the amount of extra funds coming into the Territory. I do not believe I am misquoting the Opposition Leader, but she said, ‘Since 2001, we have had an extra $1.1bn each year’. I think that was right, wasn’t, Treasurer?
Mr Stirling: Yes, that was the figure.
Ms MARTIN: They were the words used. That is six years. We should have this massive budget of about $10bn. We do not - we do not. What we have is a difference between about $2.2bn, which has grown over that period of time to about $3.3bn now. I point out that the maths the Opposition Leader is talking about is rubbish. It is actually rubbish. I am not being condescending but, if we are going to use figures, then let us use accurate figures. If we had $1.1bn extra for six years, we would now have a budget of $8.4bn. We would have a budget to be dealing with $8.4bn, which would be fantastic. We seriously thank the Commonwealth government and seriously look at our own revenue raising capacity.
However, the fact is, that is not right. So, can we deal with facts when we are talking about budgets in the Territory? We think it was about $2.2bn in 2001, now it is up to about $3.3bn. We have seen, over that period of time, an increase in that budget, but it has been incremental over that period of time. Can we just establish that as the fact of the matter?
Government rejects the motion that was put forward today. One of the points that I have just made about the lack of facts, the lack of briefings, is fundamental to rejecting the motion that has been put forward.
I am proud to place on the record in this House the effort this government has undertaken to ensure the community is protected and safe. That does not mean everything is running perfectly, but we have put considerable effort into ensuring that this community is protected and safe, and we will continue to do that. As I said yesterday, government is committed to swift action to combat crime wherever it appears.
I am not one who regularly harps back in history, to the times of previous CLP government, but it is important to get a context here. When you see a motion like this before the House, I cannot help but reflect on what it was like when we inherited and took over the law and order issue over the last six years.
Let us just look back at 2001. These are the facts. In 2001, when we had a budget of about $2.2bn to run the Territory, the police numbers were low, with the police force members forced to work enormous hours. Police were leaving at a very high attrition rate. Morale was low and stress levels were high. No doubt about it. That was 2001. We instigated a review into police numbers which was done by Jim O’Sullivan – the O’Sullivan Review. That review demonstrated that, in 2003, police numbers including constables and above, ACPOs and auxiliaries, stood at 904. Today, as of 30 September - just a few weeks ago - that number is now 1127, an increase of 222. The opposition can duck and weave and throw up statistics and facts, but it is hard to get past the fact that, in 2003, there were 904 bodies in police uniforms and, today, there are 1127.
In addition to that 1127, I also recently announced the employment of 40 additional police officers. As part of Closing the Gap, we have funded an additional 24 police who will be allocated to the Child Abuse Task Force, and this will free up around the same number of police to return to other duties. We are also employing an additional 16 police in the bush as part of our remote community police strategy. While they are in place, this will bring the number of additional police, ACPOs and auxiliaries to 242 since 2003. That is additional – 242. As a proportion of our police force, that will mean we will have increased numbers by 26%. I say there would be very few governments in Australia who achieved that in the last four years. That is a fact about police numbers.
Let me now turn to the resources issues. We have increased the police numbers, but we have also increased police resources. In this case, we have an even better story to tell. Since 2001, we have increased the budget for Police, Fire and Emergency Services by 65%. Today, the budget for Police, Fire and Emergency Services is $226m, and that money has gone to improving equipment, improving facilities, and getting more advanced and better tools for the police to do the job they do. We have used those resources to improve the pay and conditions of police, believing as we do that our police should be properly rewarded for what is a tough job. We have provided some conditions that are leading the nation; housing, for example, comes to mind. I feel that the evidence is there to suggest that these additional resources and improved conditions have been effective in reducing the staff attrition numbers.
Listening to the Opposition Leader; she just scouted around to pluck a number from somewhere. She said: ‘I think attrition is at 8%’. I can tell the Opposition Leader that the attrition rate has been reduced from 6% to 4.5% and, if she wanted to ask for a briefing, we would tell her that. It undermines her credibility if she comes in here with a serious motion that she has put before the House and makes up figures. 4.5% is the attrition rate from our police force. Compare that with our very mobile workforce in the Territory. As we have said over the last 24 hours in here, we have a turnover in the public sector of about 25% each year; a quarter of our 16 000 public servants turn over every year. To compare that with just 4.5% in police means that our police are much more committed, are working well in what they are doing, than they were a few years ago. That is in the context of the Australian Federal Police building their numbers quite considerably, of other police forces also being very active in marketing for officers coming from other forces. So 4.5% is a real tribute to the additional resources that have gone into our police.
The additional capital resources we have put into place have also been used to build police stations and posts around the Territory. For example, we have built a police station at Humpty Doo and had the plans in place for a new police station at Casuarina. Around the Territory, police posts and facilities have also been built. We have cooperated with the Commonwealth in identifying further areas for expansion of a police presence. The resources we have put in have been focused on improving the capability of police, their facilities and equipment.
Let me turn to the legislative tools we have put in place to assist police in doing their job. Prior to coming to office, the government of the day, the CLP, who were in power for 27 years, refused to accept …
Mr Conlan: Another history lesson.
Ms MARTIN: The member for Greatorex has been here for two minutes, but if you read a few Parliamentary Records and listen to what your predecessors said, your predecessors refused to accept that there was a link between drugs and crime. They stood in this parliament time and time again and said: ‘What are you opposition on about? There is no link between drugs and crime’.
Dr Burns: Minuscule; that is what he said.
Ms MARTIN: Minuscule, that was the word, wasn’t it? It was a minuscule impact of drugs and crime.
Mr Mills: It was none of us. None of us were there.
Ms MARTIN: You were there. It was 1999, member for Blain. We know when you came in here and that was in the heyday of saying the problem with drugs and crime, the link was minuscule. The former member for Brennan used that quite regularly.
Mr Conlan: You get that feeling you have to have some length of service before people even give you any credibility?
Ms MARTIN: When I attacked, when the opposition attacked …
Mr Conlan: According to the member for Millner, if you have not been here for 25 years, you are not alive, it does not matter.
Ms MARTIN: … the extent of drug availability in the Territory in the late 1990s …
Mr Conlan: You have to be in this House, I do not how long do you have to be in this House, Chief Minister, before you are even entitled to an opinion?
Ms MARTIN: … I was attacked by the then government, probably also the member for Blain who is pretending he was not here in those days.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Chief Minister, one moment. Member for Greatorex, could you reduce your interjections, please.
Ms MARTIN: Thank you. It is all very well for the member for Blain, the Deputy Opposition Leader, to say: ‘I was not here then’. Well, he was. He certainly was, along with his colleagues who were in government, who said that there was no link between drugs and crime. Remember the ‘minuscule’ word? It was great.
When we came to government in 2001, we moved quickly to introduce new legislation aimed at tackling drugs. We introduced drug house laws and I believe those laws, together with the additional capacity by the police, had a significant impact on property crime and made a significant difference. We have also introduced legislation improving the ability to intercept communications where criminal activity is involved. We have reformed the Criminal Code to ensure the laws and penalties are updated. We have introduced legislation designed to remove the profits of crime from criminals and have taken away millions of dollars of assets from them. It has worked extraordinarily well. It is a very powerful tool.
We have also introduced legislation aimed at resolving some of the underlying causes of criminal activity. Our family justice mediation process, supported by the community justice legislation, is aimed at getting to the underlying conflicts that exist between large families, particularly in some of our remote communities.
The alcohol restrictions that we introduced and will continue to introduce are the most comprehensive in Australia. We have dry area legislation, public areas legislation, private restricted premises, as well as an array of alcohol management plans backed by legislation where it is needed.
We are reforming and improving the protection provided to victims of domestic and family violence, and we have introduced anti-gang legislation which, despite the claims of the Opposition Leader in this debate, provides police with an additional tool to disrupt and apprehend gangs. I have also outlined plans by government to introduce legislation aimed at dealing with repeat offenders, particularly youths, and measures designed to make parents more responsible for the behaviour of children out on the streets at night.
Again, if you look at the facts of what was presented by the Opposition Leader, she said ‘anti-gang legislation does not work’. I say to the Opposition Leader there is a raft of legislation never contemplated by the previous government that we have systematically introduced to be able to give police the tools to tackle crime in the Territory. That is a long list of legislation, particularly the legislation that we are starting to now see the effect of: the legislation that tackles the abuse of alcohol.
The dry areas legislation is having good effect in Alice Springs, and I am pleased about that. We will continue to monitor it, and ensure that it is having a good effect. However, it is only one measure in tackling the problem. When you have a significant problem, as we have with alcohol abuse in the Territory, we need to keep chipping away it. There is no magic bullet. We are not the Mal Brough believers; that problems have a magic bullet solution. You have to systematically tackle problems as they emerge and keep being creative and flexible in how you deal with them ...
Mr Conlan: If you had attacked the problem in the first place …
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! Member for Greatorex.
Mr Conlan: It is easy to pick on Mal Brough.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Greatorex!
Ms MARTIN: I believe the dry areas legislation, the public areas legislation, the private restricted premises – and I pay tribute to Housing working very effectively with tenants to see individual tenants in public housing across the Territory declare their premises dry. I do not know whether the minister has the latest figure, but there were …
Mr McAdam: Twenty-nine in Alice Springs in the last few months.
Ms MARTIN: Twenty-nine in Alice Springs. Housing is actively working with their tenants who want to declare their own premises dry and support that tackling of the abuse of alcohol we see. There is no doubt in many of our public housing areas, particularly the complexes, that the abuse of alcohol is one of the key issues about why there is antisocial behaviour.
Madam Speaker, I have now put before the House the facts about police numbers, police resources and the legislative tools available to police to do their job.
Let me now turn to statistics. Again, unlike the CLP in their 26 or 27 years of government, this government has put into place a statistics unit based in the Department of Justice, which regularly reports on crime statistics. It was interesting to go back to the debates where we said you need to have independent statistics, and it was fought hard and long by the then government. You would look at annual reports, and annual report after annual report would have different comparisons. You could never do anything with the police figures that were presented. As soon as you thought you had a handle on them, they would change the categories so that you were then told you were not comparing apples and apples; you had apples and bananas or something equivalent.
We did so. We made the commitment to have independent figures, a statistics unit, and we also knew that the opposition could do what they liked with those figures, knowing that every quarter we would be under public scrutiny. Those figures provide an important indication of the different aspects of crime. As I said yesterday, the most recent figures show a rise in the reported assaults, around 9% on a year-by-year basis. We are not backing off.
Yesterday in the House I talked a length about the concern we have about the number of assaults, but also some of the reasons why we are seeing them. Overall, property crime remains down by 30% since 2001. That does not mean every quarter it is dropping, but it does mean that overall we are seeing a drop. Sometimes there are spikes but, overall, we have seen that drop by 30% since 2001. Commercial break-ins are down by 23% since 2001, but those commercial break-ins are up in the last 12 months – not good enough. Property damage is down by 22% since 2001, but has been creeping up in the last 12 months, that is up 8%. We are not distorting figures. They are the figures.
Motor vehicle theft, down 50% since 2001, and house break-ins are down 48% since 2001. So house break-ins, which really, for members here, doorknocking in your electorate before 2001, the key issue you heard was break-ins to houses, and that really was a direct link with drugs. It was those using drugs who needed to raise the funds, and they were breaking in. When you went from door to door in many areas in my electorate, the first issue you heard was either they had had a break-in, or somebody next door or somebody close by had had a break-in. Establishing the methadone maintenance program and drug house legislation has seen a real difference in the number of people dependent on drugs who were breaking into houses to get the funds they needed. Sometimes it was funding a $100-a-day drug problem. They needed to make that money. We have stopped that by doing what was needed to be done a long time ago.
Police advise that the rise in violence is, in part, due to changes in reporting processes. That is one of the reasons why there has been a rise in the number of assaults. However, over 60% of assaults in the Territory are alcohol-related and, as I have indicated, we have made curbing alcohol abuse a clear priority by introducing the strongest alcohol restrictions in Australia. However, we will not put up with the rubbish that the Commonwealth has imposed on the Territory which, as the minister responsible made very clear in Question Time …
Mr Conlan: If you had done your job in the first place he would not be here.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms MARTIN: … the $100 - it is just ridiculous. It has no outcome associated with it; it is just documentation. I can buy $99.95-worth of alcohol and I do not have to record anything. Then I can go and buy another $99, and then another $99. What does that achieve? You have retailers, takeaways, having to document and people delayed in wanting to move through the takeaways for no outcome but having lists. I suggest that the lists, knowing Territorians, probably have some quite interesting things written on them. I have heard reports that people are not taking it seriously because it is not to be taken seriously.
Alcohol is a serious issue for the Territory, and when you put in legislation it has to be well targeted, well thought through, and it actually has to lead to results that mean that alcohol abuse is going down. That one is a load of rubbish.
The pattern that these figures that I have been talking about show is that we have less property crime victims and more reported victims of assaults. It also shows that we must continue to keep property crime under focus to ensure that we keep a lid on the problem. These are the facts. Government is not trying to deny any problems, the problems are out there. We saw them at Wanguri over the weekend. The problems are certainly out there.
Equally, we will not let the opposition say that crime is out of control. It is not. Today, we are better equipped, better focused and better resourced to attack crime than ever before. I believe the police are doing a solid and strong job. However, that does not mean there is not more to do, re-assessments to do, and new strategies to put in place.
I will, as Police minister, work very closely with our Police Commissioner and our police force to ensure that we are able to respond as issues emerge, that we are able to tackle the problems that we have. It is not just about what police are doing, though. It is about how police are working across government, working with Racing, Gaming and Licensing, and with other areas of government when it comes to antisocial behaviour. This is the strategy that we are currently reviewing to ensure that, when we deal with antisocial behaviour and other aspects of community disturbances, that we have strategies backing up what police are doing, because police can only do so much. There are other issues that have to be addressed; a much more whole-of-government approach to keeping our communities safe and keeping disturbances down is certainly the direction for the future.
I thank our police force for the hard work they do. I know they are getting extra police. We are constantly looking at what resourcing is needed. I thank them for their hard work. I know that we have more to do. We have to work more closely with our community. We have to open up those channels of communication. I believe that we can see a safer community - that is not just here in Darwin, it is in Alice Springs and remote parts of the Territory. We will; we have that as a target, Madam Speaker, and we are after achieving that.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, in this matter, this context, this adversarial toing and froing, it is difficult to gain a proper toehold. However, we have to start with a clear proposition. The simple fact is that a state or territory government has a core responsibility to deliver services. In order to deliver those services, they have the capacity to generate own source revenue through taxes, fees and charges, and they also receive federal grants and GST. It is a simple matter, in the broader sense, of assessing the core business of delivering service to the community that has elected you, and the revenue that you receive in order to perform that function.
These figures, by the way, are figures that were provided through the estimates process. During the estimates process earlier on, I asked what the population increase has been since 2001. The population increase since 2001 probably has just nudged up a point of a percent since then according to the dorothy dixer in Question Time today. However, in 2001 until estimates, it was a 7% increase in population. In that same period of time, the increase in own source revenue to the Territory government coffers has been an increase of 67%. A 7% increase in population; more people to deliver services to - but, look over here, there has been a 67% increase in own source revenue of stamp duty, fees and charges. Stamp duty is significantly increased to this Territory government as a result of the housing boom and the increased cost in houses and the like.
When we look at GST, to be honest, you will admit that the expectations on the GST from the Commonwealth down to the states and territories is far greater than they ever expected. The Northern Territory population has increased 7% since 2001, own source revenue has increased by 67% and GST has increased by 80% in that same period. It is a fact, and your office cannot dispute that because that was provided during your own estimates process.
Then, we go to the other broad question. The core responsibility of a state or territory government is to deliver services. How effectively are you delivering those services? When it comes to the issue of police, the police themselves are an extension of a plan to restrain the antisocial and criminal within our community and to promote a more civil society. Have they been successful in this? Have they been resourced? Has the resourcing increased? Yes, it has. There has been a review - we have heard this many times - and that review asked important questions and posed certain answers to those questions, and certain levels of resourcing have flowed as a result of that.
Government just needs to get over it. That is what you are meant to do: conduct reviews. If you are going to get your jollies by looking back at what happened before and say: ‘Oh, but, look what happened’, that is fine. That only indicates that you are really more interested in yourself and how you appear before the community rather than what you do for the community. That is why this sort of response is unsatisfying.
The issue is whether crime has increased over this period. We have percentage figures chucked backwards and forwards. But, as the member for Wanguri, in his heyday, in those early days, in those heady days of government - I notice that the heady days have gone now, they have a heady ache because they do not like going out as much as they used to. Now they ain’t getting stroked the right way and they are getting criticised and grumbled at about the state of affairs in the Northern Territory so you do not see them going around the traps as much as you used to.
There is only one member north of Katherine who is CLP and I seem to be popping up at a number of functions these days where there is not one Labor member. That is quite a contrast from the first term when they were there, strutting around the place with their little tail feathers out. Everyone was saying: ‘Oh look’, and they were always having a nice chat to them. The honeymoon is well and truly over and they are not being received as royalty any more. They have been told: ‘Listen, buddy, get over it. You have a job to do’. ‘Oh, right, okay’. It is not just driving around in cars and being feted and acknowledged at every function.
No, you have something to do as well. That is to attend to this question: has crime increased or not? Is government delivering the appropriate services or not? Is it making a difference? If you were running a business, are you heading in the right direction or not? If you are not, then you can put out media releases and con everyone who is working that everything is going hunky-dory. Everyone knows media releases and little stories you run around the place and promotion exercises you run may not mask the facts. Well, it certainly does not mask it. Media releases and glossy brochures wear thin after a while. You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of them all of the time.
So, is crime increasing or not? Going back to the member for Wanguri, he used to say in his heady days: ‘Why do not you get out there and talk to everybody?’ I have not heard him say that for a while now because I am getting out there and I am hearing things. I have worked in my own community for 18 years. I am not going around saying: ‘Tell me, is the government bad?’ ‘Oh yes’. No, I just want to know, I am interested in my community, I just want to play my part, and I am hearing stories. I ask the people the question.
I know for a fact that, as a politician, you can fall into the trap of asking a question, but not really listening to the answer. It is a bit of discipline to actually listen to what people say – people who you know, and people in the community. I am of the view that the community has formed a view that things are not as good as they have been. Statistics will demonstrate that. You can play with different lines. You can pick up one line and say: ‘Well, that has gone down’. But the disturbing trend that should alert anyone is that violent crime is increasing. That really troubles me, and it troubles many of us. We wonder why we are now living in a more violent society. The statistics show that. This is a need to which a service must be delivered to correct and change that.
If we just keep talking about numbers and statistics, and so on, we will have an argument about maths, basically, when really it is an argument about what is working and what is not, and the people who stand behind these statistics. To be a victim of a physical assault must be a horrible experience. I have not been; I do not like violence. I have witnessed it on one occasion as a young man, and I just did not know what to do. I saw a man belting his wife, and it was awful to see. When you see the figures, the crime stats comparison, you get out there, fluff yourselves up and issue a media release, and say: ‘This one is not as bad as that one, but from this period to that period, it is not as bad as they are saying’. That is really not the point because a physical assault reported is a physical assault on a person and there is a horrible story behind that.
What is being applied that will change that? That is the core of the matter. How can we fix that? How do we turn that around? Arguments about percentage figures will not fix it. I am of the view that the resourcing is there. The population has increased, and levels of resources to the Territory government have increased at a far greater rate. The core business of government is to deliver services. I am dissuaded of the view that the statistics – yes, round of applause; good on you, you have done what you said you would do, and that is to produce these statistics. You can get over that. You said you would do it and you did, so that is good. Magnanimous comments and the suggestion that we knew full well that the opposition may make mischief of these figures, not that you played any other dissimilar game when you were in opposition …
Mr Stirling: You never had statistics. Don’t tell lies.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: Madam Speaker, I find the dreadful inconsistency of the member for Nhulunbuy, who can feign disgust at certain words that may be used …
Mr Stirling: You never had statistics to comment on! Don’t make it up!
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr MILLS: All right, I will get to the point of it. Madam Speaker, I ask that he withdraw the word ‘lie’; I cannot stand hypocrisy.
Mr Stirling: Coming from the greatest hypocrite in the Chamber! Your government never had statistics to comment on!
Madam SPEAKER: Order, Deputy Chief Minister!
Mr Stirling: Don’t invent it!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr STIRLING: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Deputy Chief Minister, withdraw the last couple of paragraphs, I think.
Mr STIRLING: Madam Speaker, I withdraw unequivocally.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr MILLS: And if we are going to play that kind …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Blain, direct your comments through the Chair.
Mr MILLS: I was, Madam Speaker. I will. While we are at it, if we are going to play this game with the member for Nhulunbuy, I ask him to withdraw ‘grub’ as well.
Madam SPEAKER: He withdrew everything unreservedly.
Mr MILLS: All right.
Madam SPEAKER: I believe so.
Mr MILLS: I choose to believe so as well. Anyway, we are talking about what sits behind statistics and figures. These figures tell us that there needs to be a response that changes the direction of these figures. In fact, the member for Nhulunbuy illustrated the shallow nature of politics that is being played on the other side. They are more interested in perceptions. They are more interested in themselves and how they appear in the media than making a difference and stepping up to the plate and attending to some of the issues that are presented by the statistics, for example.
They need to get over the fact that they did what they said they would do. That is fine. I have had members over there fluffing themselves up and saying: ‘Look at me! We did this, we did that’. That is what you said you would do. You are elected to do something and you did it and a round of applause is needed. You are over the moon when someone makes a sandwich for you in the sandwich bar. You pay them. That is what your responsibility is. Get over it.
The issue is: are we turning these things around or not? I propose that we are not. Matters have been discussed. I have discussed issues. I know it has been quietly taken up during the by-election in Greatorex, but I would like to see a greater effort made in the issues of attending to juvenile offenders. It is probably harder work than issuing a media release with a smiling face that says: ‘Anti-gang laws target troublemakers’, which was done in 2006. Then we have the horrendous headlines of the weekend, and that is not the first time they have appeared. In the rural area last year, it was shocking to find those couple of occasions where parties got out of hand. Ambulances were stoned on the night. I just wonder about what is going on with our young people.
From opposition, we have talked about appropriate responses to deal with juvenile offenders. Members opposite would be aware that, as a result of a break-in, it caused me to think further that we needed to put something in the middle, between diversionary and between incarceration. There are some excellent programs out there that are attending to that very important area. I believe a greater effort could be made in that area. I notice something quietly occurred, as I said, at the Greatorex by-election. I hope that that is followed all the way through, not just for the effect of saying that we have done something but not really interested in the substance therein, but to really move substantially into this area and to allow those programs to receive government support and leadership.
It does not necessarily have to cost a lot of money, but it does provide the opportunity for government to play a leadership role. At meetings that I have attended on this matter in the Top End in recent times, and in past times in Palmerston, we were trying to convene some kind of coordination between agencies which all had a similar interest in youth intervention. They need a broker; someone to provide the leadership. That leadership comes from the Territory government in this instance. I will do whatever I can as a member of parliament but, ultimately, the responsibility falls on government to provide that facilitation and that leadership. Otherwise, you get the different agencies competing over pots of money, and that seems to be, unless properly moderated, a greater interest than dealing with the problem.
That is what governments are elected for. Sadly, this is a government that has largely been captured by the organisation, and they are really products of the organisation. They are given lines to speak, little screeds to read, and they are able to make little presentations, and put glossies into the letterboxes to create an impression. Their heart is not really in it, and people are seeing through it, because the figures are not going in the right direction. As the member for Wanguri has urged me, time and time again in the last Assembly, to get out there; I am still out there and I am hearing that this government is not able to keep on top of issues that it has responsibility to get on top of – crime.
I do not want to go to, as the previous speaker from the CLP, who led well with the explanation of the statistics and the issue of attrition, and the words that were used. The question of attrition has not been addressed. Worst of all, this fake horror on the other side when they talk about things that happened in the past, when we often heard – even yesterday – how the term ‘for presentation purposes only’ has been bandied around like the darkest sin that has ever occurred. I would have to say, the same sin has been committed time and time again. When you tell the community that there are going to be 200 additional policemen on the beat, that is simply ‘for presentation purposes only’. That is all it is; to create an impression.
All of that has been well established by the Opposition Leader in her presentation. What I would like to add is the need to go deeper and to attend to the issues that sit beneath the rising crime rates – the fact that this Territory government has core business to attend to, has the means to attend to it, and is not meeting that challenge. All the puffery, the glossies, the assertions, and the fake and feigned outrage from the other side, will make little difference to those to whom we have a responsibility to respond. That is the basic issue here. I am sure that does weigh on the hearts and minds of those who are in this Chamber and are involved in this matter.
Madam Speaker, I urge honourable members to support this motion.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I will be brief. The motion should be supported for obvious reasons. However, we in opposition are philosophical about our lot in life, and we know how twitchy and sensitive this government is in relation to just about everything.
I remember when Peter Toyne was Attorney-General, and when the crime figures were introduced. I will find the reference because I do have it here somewhere. On 26 November 2002, when he was sitting right where the former minister for Police now sits, he talked about the figures and how great it was for Labor to introduce them, etcetera. This was in response to a censure motion. He said in relation to the figures:
The pattern and trends that are emerging are worthy of members’ falling – indeed, even the government.
We are used to government spin. We deal with it every day and there is nothing that is beneath them. We do not like it, because we think it is a pretty slippery way to operate, and we believe Territorians expect and deserve better. However, that is our lot and that is the lot of this government. Who would have thought that, a year ago today, the federal Leader of the Opposition would be well in front in the opinion polls and that things were not looking good for John Howard as Prime Minister? How quickly things can change.
This government, by its conduct, is putting people’s noses out of joint in almost every way imaginable. One significant way is its failures - and its consistent failures – in a range of areas relating to law and order. The Chief Minister should be condemned for the figures that we have seen. Peter Toyne said when they were introduced that you would stand or fall – profound words, as always, from the former Attorney-General.
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Blain, for his contribution. I have stated the terms of the motion. It is understood by government; we understand why they reject it, but we ask that the motion be put in any event.
Motion negatived.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move:
That this Assembly:
(a) establishes a Regulation Relief Review Advisory Committee (Advisory Committee) subordinate to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Standing Committee;
(i) to review all laws and regulations that impact on business in the Territory, including procurement practices and other process requirements of the Northern Territory government, and
(c) agrees to the membership of the committee to be made up of a chairperson nominated by the Leader of Government Business; a deputy chairperson to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition; two members nominated by business associations (made up of a representative from the Business Council, REINT, Chamber of Commerce, Cattlemen’s Association, Trucking Association, Construction Association, the MTAA, the HIA and any other organisation agreed to by the chair and deputy chair), of the Northern Territory; a consumer advocate agreed to by the chair and deputy chair of the committee and the Northern Territory Ombudsman;
It is pretty straightforward, Madam Speaker, and it is a concept that we promote. Territorians and the government will be hearing more in the future about what the CLP will propose to make it easier for businesses in the Territory. We promote the idea that businesses should be relieved of the shackles of over-regulation by government. Often when I speak to business men and women in the community, I am confronted, as I know are my colleagues, by the comment that there is too much regulation entrenched on our statute books and that they are a source of great irritation to those businessmen and women.
This committee will be about reviewing legislative instruments to make the process of doing business in the Territory easier and simpler. We should attend to our regulatory instruments and ask ourselves how many of these instruments are redundant in their operation and intent, and how many are unreasonable impediments to doing business with government. This is less about exploring what we know to be a problem in regulation but more an exercise in discovering what we do not know to be the problems.
Perhaps one of the best ways to highlight the issue is by looking at some examples of redundant regulatory instruments in the Northern Territory. There are some and I will go through some of them.
Regulation 11 of the Motor Vehicles Regulations details at some length about where to affix registration labels on windscreens, and that there is a requirement to have them fixed on the bottom left hand corner of the windscreen that would clearly be visible to a person standing 6 m away. Many hire car companies do not adhere to this requirement because they affix the label to the rear passenger window. I can imagine there will be a time when somebody decides that this is a breach of the regulations and then the company will have to get all of their labels renewed. This regulation was from a time, as I understand it, when it was necessary to display labels because they were the only way the registration could be checked by inspectors and police without a manual search of a registration register. Since the early 1980s, those details have been available on computer and easily and conveniently checked by a quick radio call. The need to display the labels so clearly has been somewhat diminished by technology. Regulation 16 of the Motor Vehicles Regulations is simply redundant and should not be on the statute books because it refers to a defunct tax.
Another example is section 26 of the Absconding Debtors Act, an act I used to deal with when I was practising. The Absconding Debtors Act has a provision that a debt of $40 000 or more must be pursued through the Supreme Court. Clearly, that amount is not what it used to be and legal fees would probably make that ceiling unappealing for any potential claimant.
A reading of section 75 of the Summary Offences Act also highlights possibly redundant legislation which could still catch people out. I was not aware of this until I was advised recently that it is a provision of the act that on a public thoroughfare it is an offence to be, and I quote:
I note that the legislation is so old that the original drafter’s spelling of ‘waggon’ uses what might be described as the Middle English spelling of wagon with a double ‘g’. Surely the issue is now so remote from the reality that the regulation should be removed from the statute books. If there is an issue about the movement of a wagon then perhaps the Traffic Act should be left to deal with the matter. The other shortcoming of that instrument is that it could not achieve what is attempts to achieve because of its paltry penalty of $200. Clearly, it was a serious fine once when you consider that, attendant to that law, a member of the police force has instant powers of arrest without warrant for anybody breaching that law.
The modern business context demands that the regulatory environment serves business, while balancing businesses needs with the needs of the public in general. I know that compliance costs with the requirements of government are a problem and we have heard a number of stories and some of them have been quite concerning from a range of business men and women. There are many legislative instruments such as tax regulations that incur compliance costs for business. Payroll tax is one example. Perhaps it is time that ways of lowering those compliance costs can be explored.
The demands of government in relation to the Bellamack development are causing many potential developers great anger because the government is demanding to receive a slice of the profits rather than simply selling the land at UCV to the approved developer. This places government in an odd position and gives it a vested interest in keeping prices high, so we are told, because it becomes an increased source of income. We have heard that on several occasions from people who come to us. The authorisation for the minister to demand such contractual arrangements used to be found in the Contracts Act. Perhaps business would want to recommend changes to that act which has been unchanged since self-government, I am advised, to prevent government from engaging in commercial arrangements that place the government in a position of being in conflict with their own social responsibilities such as ensuring affordable land.
One of the most contentious areas of government in the business community is procurement. This area still rankles many people in many ways. It is heavily regulated through subordinate legislation and one would hope that the process is a fair and reasonable process. However, it remains a source of unending irritation for many. After the experience with the solar panels at Kings Canyon, there are many who think that the process is compromised. Contract splitting by departments to slide under reporting thresholds is also a common complaint.
Clearly, with the infrastructure spending of this government, procurement is something many people would like to have input into in relation to regulations. The amount of paperwork that stands in the way of process also causes people to complain and, as we know, complain bitterly. Compliance with the procurement requirements are substantial and many businesses just cannot afford the time or the money to meet those requirements. These requirements are not always for major projects either.
Although it is by way of a slight digression, there is a raft of other issues that upset business men and women. The definition of a local when it comes to local business is more observed in the breach than it is in the compliance. For example, SOCOM is listed by DCIS as a local business, but my advice is that many people take the view that the office is not really local. Everyone knows that SOCOM is Sheila O’Sullivan, that great Labor friend from Victoria. It has won the contract against local bidders to sell the government’s middle schools policy and, more recently, the government’s local government reform plan. We were put on to this by someone not so long ago: if you look up the White Pages, it has a listed post office address and when you ring the business, as someone from my office did recently, a man picks up the phone and says, ‘Hello, it’s Damien’, and only after some prompting does he identify himself as the local SOCOM representative. Who, we ask, are these people trying to kid?
It is a concern for many people. It may even be the case that business asks for laws to be created so that the government keeps its promises, for instance. For example, the no fee to access our parks, as my colleagues, the members for Greatorex and Katherine, have been concerned about in particular, given the complaint from a tourism operator in Central Australia who gets slugged because he goes into the parks.
It is intended that this committee takes the same subordinate role to the Subordinate Legislation committee that the Statehood Steering Committee takes to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. That is relatively straightforward. However, this has a limited time to do its consultation with business and report back to the House with a list of offending regulations to business with a view to improving how business is done.
It is intended to take evidence and report as soon as possible. We suggest that it is useful and will give government insights that it does not currently have. The concept is straightforward. It will exist for a period not exceeding eight months and, hopefully, it will be a useful tool for business to communicate what they need us to do as their elected representatives. It does not need a long-winded speech to make clear what is intended by this process. It could only be well received by businesses which are trying to make their way in our highly regulated community.
Madam Speaker, we have spoken at some length with the Chamber of Commerce about this proposal and it was met with a level of enthusiasm. We have talked to a range of business people. I know what the next speaker is going to say, because we know that ministerial staffers have been ringing industry groups today asking: ‘Did they speak to you?’ You would think that the government might be doing a bit more for the Northern Territory than instructing their staff to ring up all and sundry and ask: ‘Have they talked to you?’ I will tell you what we have done with this. We did speak to the Chamber of Commerce, and we have spoken to a number of representatives throughout the business community. Not all of them hold the position that you people have tried to ring through to today. Of course, as with every policy proposal that is a significant, innovative, creative policy proposal, we will then go through our processes of engaging with the relevant stakeholders. So we can knock that one on the head before you blokes start to get stuck into it.
This is an innovative proposal. If the opposite speaker stands up and says that business has no gripes with the amount of regulations that cause difficulty to business men and women in the Territory, then, to quote a phrase that is oft used by members opposite, ‘you got to get out more’. If they have stopped ringing your office to complain about the difficulty of doing business with government, then heaven help us, frankly, because you really should know.
I feel certain that the government will reject this proposal because that is the form of this increasingly arrogant and mischievous government. We in the opposition take our responsibilities very seriously. It is important for the opposition to come in with proposals, to ask government, in this place as well as outside, why you have not done this, you should be doing this, and so on.
We believe, as do our fellow Territorians, that this government is resting on their laurels, that they are tired, they are irritable with one another, which is abundantly clear, and that the Chief Minister is more interested in watching her back than getting on with the job of governing for all Territorians. Well, if this mob on the other side does not want to do it any more, call an election and off we go. Such is the depth of animosity towards you people - and by God, you have deserved each and every bit of it - that it will be an incredibly interesting election result. Member for Greatorex, was the Labor vote 16% at Greatorex by-election? Unprecedented. So if you people think that you are doing a darn good job, have a look at yourself because you are not ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Ms CARNEY: And you, why you are still sitting here, I have no idea. You should go fishing.
With those comments, Madam Speaker, I look forward to so many members on the other side participating in this debate, participating in robust debate. We have talked about robust debate earlier today in the Chamber. I look forward to hearing from government as to why it is that they are doing such an outstanding job that they would vote against this motion.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I am just relieved that she has finished that load of drivel. To stand there and call for an election on the basis of – well, the greatest swing in history, the newly-elected member for Greatorex ...
Mr Conlan: No, the greatest lost! The greatest loss in history!
Mr STIRLING: Have a look – 16% of the voters, I got bigger than that myself in 1997. Go and have a look at the figures, you will find much bigger swings than that throughout Northern Territory history. You cannot come in here and make things up on the spot like the …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr STIRLING: … because he thinks people do not have a memory – a corporate memory around this place. The member for Greatorex, unfortunately, is taking a lead straight out of the member for Blain’s book, where he comes in here, makes outrageous sorts of generalised claims about all things, claiming to know everything, and they are simply not true. The greatest swing in Northern Territory political history – 16%!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Please pause, minister.
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Greatorex said no such thing.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Please continue.
Mr STIRLING: Well, if it was not the member for Greatorex, it was the member for Araluen. I put her in the same category. That makes three out of the four of them prone to grandiose exaggerations.
The biggest swing that occurred, of course, was in 2005, I would have thought - the biggest swing.
Madam Speaker, despite the difficulty, I did listen closely to what the Leader of the Opposition had to say this afternoon. I find the best possible way of finding out what the business community thinks of any particular difficulty they might have, or any proposal that we might want to put forward, is to talk to them. It is no great secret there. You arrange meetings, you engage with them directly across the table, talk to them directly - do it all the time. It is an essential part of the Treasurer’s job. It is an essential part of most of ministers in this government. If business operators have any concerns, as they do from time to time, they ring. They contact my office, and they contact other minister’s offices. I have had regular calls from the business world about issues of concern, and asking for consideration and action around particular matters affecting them.
The member for Araluen may not be aware, but this government does have a range of very effective forums already in place where the business community has the opportunity across the table in direct face-to-face with ministers to put forward their ideas and discuss them. For example: the minister for Business with the Northern Territory Business Council Biannual Forums with all major business and industry groups; and the Chief Minister’s Business Round Table began in 2002. There have been seven so far in 2007; a total of 54 across the Territory since that initiative first began. More than 700 business and industry representatives have taken part in those business round tables. I have been a regular attendee for a long time as Minister for Employment, Education and Training, because many of the issues coming across the table from business and industry were around training, traineeships, apprenticeships, that type of issue. I have attended regularly also, in my capacity as Treasurer and supporting the Chief Minister and the minister for Business, at these round tables. I have seen firsthand what a terrific success they have been and how much they have been appreciated by the business world in being able to put their issues directly to ministers. As Treasurer, I hold quarterly meetings with a range of representatives from different sectors to hear directly from them what is happening on the ground in their particular business and industry.
All these meetings and forums exist specifically to give government an insight into what challenges the business community are facing in the Territory, and to give business that direct opportunity to put those concerns. Alongside that direct interaction and communication, we have implemented the Competition Impact Analysis Process developed as an essential component of COAG National Competition Policy commitments. It is a strict review process to remove any unnecessary or unduly burdensome business regulation. Under that National Competition Policy, all jurisdictions are required to review existing legislation that restricts business conduct and market competition to ensure that the benefits of such restrictions to the community outweigh the costs of the introduction of it.
Governments are also required to institute formal frameworks for the review of all new and amending legislation. That has recently been even further strengthened by COAG through the National Reform Agenda. This agenda requires all governments to adhere to strengthen legislative review principles and processes, including an increased focus on cost-benefit analysis for new legislation aimed at reducing business red tape. In response to these commitments, the Territory’s Competition Impact Analysis Process was reviewed in 2007 and new principles and guidelines were developed. These new arrangements further increase the quality and rigour of reviews to ensure benefits of legislation outweigh costs and, again, to reduce inefficient business compliance burdens.
That is good news for Territory business. It is good news for the Territory economy. Key components of those new arrangements will be the annual reviews of business red tape as well as the development of formal regulation impact analysis training courses for officials.
In relation to the government’s procurement practices, there is a range of measures in place to specifically ensure appropriate consultation with the business community. The Procurement Review Board reviews government’s procurement processes and includes representatives of the Northern Territory Industry Capability Network, an industry-based company which promotes and supports local suppliers. The Government Procurement Council enables the private sector to have direct involvement in government procurement processes. The government also makes good use of the Procurement Liaison Officer, an independent industry contact located in the Department of Business, Economic and Regional Development.
We understand, as a government, that modern, professional businesses need confidence in a transparent procurement process. Modern business does not want to return to the old days when contracts were awarded on the basis of political patronage not merit, and it was commonly referred to as a ‘silver circle’. If you had your membership to the silver circle under the previous government, you did very well in the Northern Territory. If you were a new business on the scene or dared come from interstate to try to set up in the Northern Territory and you did not have entree to the silver circle, well bad luck. You did not get government work unless you were a long-term Territory business and contributing to the government of the day.
That is why, when we came to government, there were so many complaints about procurement because there was a whole range of business out there that thought: ‘Thank God, at least we will get a fair crack at government work’.
That is why we established the Government Procurement Council in 2003. The council’s terms of reference are to provide the minister responsible for procurement with sound advice and recommendations with respect to government procurement policy and practice; the effectiveness of such policies and practices; and the implementation of future policies and improvements. The Government Procurement Council has representations from key private sector industry bodies including the Chamber of Commerce, the Motor Traders Association, Territory Construction Association, and Unions NT. The council also includes representation from government through Northern Territory Treasury, the Department of Planning and Infrastructure, and the Department of Corporate and Information Services.
The council has played a significant role in procurement reform processes since its inception. For example, the council provided considerable input to and stewardship of the introduction of the new procurement directions in March 2006. The proposed motion, if passed, would simply duplicate the excellent work already been done through all these processes. However, there is always more that the government can do to minimise business regulation and improve the process of procurement without pushing undue expense on the taxpayer in the process.
I preface an amendment, Madam Speaker, to acknowledge the strong relationship established by the Martin government and the Territory business community and requesting that the Public Accounts Committee receive a reference to report to the Assembly on any perceived unnecessary regulatory burdens on business. I have copies of the amendment for members of the Chamber.
I move - That all words after ‘that’ in the motion be omitted and insert in their stead:
The Assembly –
Madam SPEAKER: Could we please have that distributed fairly quickly by the parliamentary officers?
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, the amendment is a little surprising. On one hand, it confirms the greater interest that government has in protecting its image, at the same time acknowledging that the opposition has quite correctly identified the necessity to assess levels of regulation that may be surplus to requirements. On the other hand, there is something that is a little offensive in it, in that they want to ensure that they do not get any criticism, so the crafting of the words is flattering to government but, at the same time, acknowledging that there is a problem that has been responded to by the Territory opposition.
I am taking time now to read the amendment. As has been mentioned often, the request to get out there and have a listen - be under no illusion, members opposite, that does occur and increasingly. I am sorry to rain on your positive and glorious view of oneself, but there are increasing levels of disappointment and concern almost to the point of fear about being overtly critical of government.
The member for Nhulunbuy can stand and go on a stream of argument. I know when he takes his glasses off, puts them down and then turns away - off he goes. He starts talking about some terrible things that happened in the past and is blind to the reality that very similar accusations are now being raised about his own government. I have taken a leaf, as I have said, from previous times when the member for Wanguri has told me to go out there and have a listen. I know friends of mine who are in business, who would prefer me not to speak to them in their workplace because messages get sent back and it makes it a little more challenging for them. That has not happened on one occasion; it happens often. There are members of the business community who would like to speak openly and frankly, and feel constrained in that manner. That is the reality and I am not making that up.
The way this organisation operates, that sort of information may very rarely pierce the heart of this organisation, whereas they get to know that there is another view out there, a contrary view to the one in which you occupy yourself, in that everyone loves you - not that I think that you would probably be thinking that - but you are doing a damn good job. You are out there, you have these little committees and groups organised and everyone is having a real good time, coming to meet the minister and having a listen, take a note of that and, afterwards, write them a letter. The novelty is wearing off a bit because …
Mr Warren: Why don’t you just stay in opposition where you should be? You don’t want to be a minister, you don’t want to be part of government? Stay there.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order, member for Goyder!
Mr MILLS: I tell you what: I would not mind if they let the reins loose on this outfit over there. There are 19 members sitting there, most of them on their little computers playing patience or whatever ...
Mr Warren: Well, you are damned by your own words.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am sitting here working. I am sure all the other members are working on their laptops, too. It is a silly inference by the member for Blain. I ask that he withdraw it.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Can you please try to stay to the motion as much as possible, member for Blain?
Mr MILLS: As much as possible, but as I understand the standing orders, I have room to move as we find during Question Time when people wander everywhere but the issue. I will. In fact, it is connected; that being I would really like to see - and this a digression but it feeds on the idea of how important it would be to allow honourable members to be actively and genuinely involved in these debates. If government would take that firm control that it has over its own organisation, that it would allow backbenchers to be involved in these debates, just as the same ones like to control the agenda and create the impression of ‘Look, we are consulting business, we have this committee, that committee, this letter, that letter and this sort of follow up’. It is creating an impression which is more important than creating a difference, therefore, you have your backbenchers all constrained.
It is General Business Day, you have tons of talent around you. Why not trust them to get up and talk about some things and be actively involved in the real business of the Chamber, rather than control and manage, and organise your own organisation, the way you are trying to organise the Northern Territory, while you are trying to respond to motions that are put up in good faith, because the greatest part of your concern is, ‘how will we appear?’ We have to manage it so that we will put up a motion that says: ‘Oh look, we are fantastic, we have done all these things and, yes, we will have a look at that thing that may be of concern to business, which is regulation’. Well, if that is the end of it, if that is the result of this, well that is a good outcome.
However, in all that you have said, member for Nhulunbuy, I hear once again that you are reactive rather than proactive. You wait for someone to suggest something, then you massage it and you craft it as your own and then put it out there. Well, I do not frankly care. I will consult with my colleagues on this matter, that you are more interested in public relations than quality leadership, that you are more interested in creating an impression than a difference.
The substance of the motion that is being presented is a good one. It is one that business would sincerely welcome - that proactive response to the increased burden that falls upon small business operators in particular. Do not think for a moment that all those carefully crafted little gatherings that you have is the sum total of all the advice that flows? It can be quite intimidating, and when it is carefully orchestrated with the primary purpose of creating an impression, then you probably get the result that you have designed your operation to produce anyway, which is, ‘Look, we have consulted. We have had a listen and here is the feedback’. I get the feedback as well. Anyway, I do not want to bore you with that. Members opposite and, sadly, one of the more senior members - the most senior member here - is more interested, as well as the Chief Minister, in personal attacks and insults than attending more to the spirit of these motions and legislation. They would rather get into the lower level business of attacking and abusing people. I never find much comfort in that.
I urge honourable members to support the motion as it has been presented to the Chamber. It must be really difficult for you, because it does come from the opposition, so it cannot be any good. This is General Business Day. Is there anything wrong with it? Have a look at it. Get up and have a talk about it, rather than mumbling through your moustache. Get up and have a talk about it and tell me what your concern about this is ...
Mr Warren: If you produce a decent motion …
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: Tell me what your concern is. I have not heard it. I only hear the official party line. We do not hear from anybody else except by mumbling little interjections across the Chamber. So, what is this? Is this a parliament or is this some sort of party operation where you are not allowed to speak or think, except to slam the opposition whenever they get up to talk, because whatever they talk about cannot be right. You cannot read; you cannot think; you cannot speak except whatever the top dog tells you to say or do. That is pretty sad.
I urge honourable members to support the motion as being put forward by the opposition in this parliament, and I will leave it at that. Perhaps there are going to be other members who will jump to their feet and have a good old talk about it.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I have listened to some of the debate on this so-called Regulation Relief Review Advisory Committee, and I admit this is probably the first time that I have heard of it, because it was only introduced last night. I also read, with interest, what the Treasurer has put in his amendment. There are some meeting of minds to some extent.
In paragraph 3 of the amendment put forward by the Treasurer, he is, to some extent saying, yes, we should perhaps be looking at this. In his case, he is referring it to the Public Accounts Committee. He is arguing this would reduce the cost of establishing a large specialist subcommittee, and this may be worthwhile. On the other hand, the CLP is looking at something similar. It is asking it to be subordinate to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs standing committee, but setting that up as an independent committee which would have to be paid and have travelling allowances and fees duly met.
I ask that if both sides of parliament are saying they think the setting up of some sort of committee to look at whether there is any unnecessary regulatory burdens - and the CLP says to ‘review all laws and regulations that impact on business in the Territory, including procurement practices and other process requirements of the Northern Territory government, and recommend removal and reform of these regulations and processes’. If that could be done through the Public Accounts Committee, we could work our way through that, and that would be a beneficial approach.
I know there has been a bit of argy-bargy between both sides but, when you look at the amendment and what the opposition is putting forward, there is room for a meeting of minds on this issue. You would have to work out who would be put on this subcommittee if it is the government’s proposal, or the committee if it is the opposition’s proposal. The opposition has put forward a list of people whom they think should be on it, and that could be open for discussion. There is the Cattlemen’s Association. You might say: ‘If we have them, why should I not have the Horticultural Association?’ If you have the Trucking Association, you might have some people say: ‘Why do we not have the bus industry because they are involved in tourism?’ There would need to be a lot of debate about the makeup of this particular committee.
If the opposition was to put this forward as something the government would pick up, they would need to look at what the cost would be. One of the arguments from this side of parliament is that we have too many committees and we get bogged down in them. What would be of benefit is to see how this committee would work; what would the cost of operating it be; how many times would it meet; if it would have a limited life basically; or would it sit for two days in Darwin, two days in Katherine, two days in Tennant Creek, two days in Alice Springs, and come up with a report. That may be enough to do what it is trying to do. If you look carefully at both the amendment and what the government is putting forward, there is a possibility we could come up with something good.
I ask the opposition when summing up to say why they believe this committee would come under Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Perhaps their argument is that, looking at different procurement practices and various laws and regulations, that that is the right committee to do that. One could equally argue that the Public Accounts Committee, which has a broader scope, might be the committee this would better work under.
Madam Speaker, in summing up, even though there is a bit of difference of opinion, there seems to be some agreement that there should be a committee of some sort which would look at unnecessary regulatory burdens on business, and that would be good. Perhaps, after all this, the opposition and the government can get together with business and work on something both sides would agree, and be of benefit to business in the Northern Territory.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I am also talking to the amendment, and will deal with that first.
Government, I assume, has deliberately not understood the intent of the motion. So be it. Arrogance brings with it all sorts of things and deliberately twisting or not understanding things is such an example.
We have in paragraph (1) the self-serving comments - we saw it in an earlier motion today - made by the author of this document. Paragraph (2), well, I am not quite sure what that has to do with the motion, but there you go. Paragraph (3) is interesting, and I am certain it is mischievous. I do not think it is driven by stupidity or at least I would like to think not. The Public Accounts Committee does all sorts of things but this is not what our motion intended. The motion intended and proposes that a number of experts, heads of peak bodies, in the Northern Territory, work in a bipartisan way with all of these organisations and the representatives who would be on the committee, to ensure that we could tackle some of the impediments that are facing business men and women in the Northern Territory. Not an objectionable or an offensive suggestion. But what does this government want? It says its Public Accounts Committee to examine and report to the Assembly on business concerns, etcetera. Well, is that good enough? We do not think so.
What is wrong with having a specialist committee with specialist people on it to advise the committee? I do not know who from the government is on the Public Accounts Committee these days. I am not sure whether any of them have had business experience, not that that precludes them from having views in relation to business matters. Would it not be best to have representatives from organisations like the Chamber of Commerce, the Trucking Association, the Construction Association, and so on? We think that is best.
We know the motion will fail. We do not support the amendment for the reasons I have outlined. I invite members to vote in support of the opposition’s motion, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: There are two motions before the Chair. The first is the motion as moved by the Leader of the Opposition. The second is an amendment to the motion as moved by the Treasurer. I will put the amendment first.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I move that this Assembly establish a Board of Inquiry to determine if there are any further victims of sexual crimes allegedly committed by Bob Collins, and that such Board of Inquiry be headed by a former judge of a supreme court or person of a similar repute and stature.
Madam Speaker, this is difficult business and, as I have mentioned earlier today, sometimes there are, unfortunately, difficult matters for us to attend to. It seems to be a day of it. I am talking about issues that strike their origins from way beneath the surface, and they are issues of principle and ethics and the like. I have to say that a forum like the parliament of the Northern Territory is the right place for these matters to be discussed. I still hold the view that this parliament should be a parliament where people can individually weigh these matters and consider them, where members of the parliament could rise and talk as these matters strike them and be unconstrained by the group view.
I would like that to occur because that is where you end up with the most creative and the most helpful solutions to difficult problems. When we have a system where there is an organised response it reduces the level of creativity that is brought to bear on the possibility of creating a solution that has the effect of bringing about restoration and closure.
I have approached this matter from the beginning and have drawn upon my own experience, particularly in leadership within a community; that being a school community. If a similar matter were to arise in a school community, I could not allow the matter to be dealt with in the manner being proposed by government as determined through their response in Question Time. I am compelled to continue and go further, as difficult and unpleasant as it may be. If the words that have been spoken in here that have been the cause for our actions are to mean anything, then I would like to hear the genuine response to these matters because it is a difficult issue.
I find it particularly difficult as I know many of the people involved. I know there is a great likelihood that the position which has been taken could be one which would be attacked as political opportunity. No, not at all. There needs to be a move forward. There is a saying ‘Because crime hurts, justice must heal’. At a conference I attended last week, I heard it said again and again. There is a world of difference between a legal system and a justice system.
A legal system, when you analyse it down to its bare essence, I do not think anyone would disagree that it is in the business of apportioning blame. Once it is impossible to apportion blame through the legal system, an adversarial system, then that is the end of the matter, so some will say; a legal mind will say that. Some will say in this case it is a convenient reality, but I do not think it is a truth because if crime does hurt, then justice must bring healing, and we have a part to play in that.
That is why I bring this motion which is general, specifically so because it raises a threshold question. I will endeavour within my time to propose some terms of reference which could be used to go down the path which I believe is necessary for us to proceed down in order to get to the place where many of us want us to go. Being elected to parliament presents us with challenges, and an inconvenient truth which we have to face at times. If only running government was a superficial exercise of trying to manage things. To really lead and manage, and to take your community somewhere, you are going to have to tend to the deeper issues, and to let people know there has been courage exhibited.
I make it clear from the outset that this motion is not about either damaging or protecting the reputation of the deceased. What I am calling for is an inquiry to find out if there are other people in our community who have had a negative sexual experience with Bob Collins. There is a reason, and at this point I draw heart from some of the words which have been spoken by members opposite during their maiden speeches, and during debates yesterday: active concern for victims and the vulnerable.
It is important to say that Bob Collins is not a guilty man. At the time of his death, there were 21 charges arising out of allegations of five people, as well as a matter of 54 images of child pornography which had been located on his computer at home. Those charges remain untested, and will remain so - therefore, not guilty. That is not the issue.
I am calling for an inquiry into the conduct of Bob Collins. In calling for an inquiry into the conduct of Mr Collins, I have not engaged in an attempt to find him guilty after the fact. My focus is clearly on the living. I know that there are outstanding issues that need to be addressed. The silence so far has been deeply troubling, and I find this silence too difficult to bear and it, in fact, hangs over this place.
On page 121 of the Little Children are Sacred report, the observation is made - applicable here. The literature is clear on this matter: a proportion of those who are abused as children will go on to commit sexual offences. Many offenders, when interviewed, will relate as part of their own history episodes of sexual abuse with them as the victim. According to Tom E Lewis, Bob Collins was in possession of two photo albums that had Polaroid photographs of abuse victims. If that is true, then there may well be many other victims out there with the potential to become abusers.
On 22 June last year, the Chief Minister said: ‘We have to break through the fear …’, there is fear, ‘… the shame’, there is shame, ‘… and the silence we see about child sex abuse in our communities’. Indeed, shame, fear and silence. It is time for, not just the Chief Minister but all members of this place, to live up to those words and to take the risk of discovering that the one whom I held in certain regard and others do also, may not hold the same position now. That is why it is difficult.
I have assessed this in my own personal outlook. If this was someone as close as you could get to me - a brother or a father, my own - would my position change? I have had to ask myself that question. If it was someone close to me, very close to me, would my position in parliament change as a result of that? I venture to say it would not.
All of us must support this motion if we are going to be true to the Chief Minister’s words about breaking the silence. It is not - and I repeat it again it is not - about trapping the Chief Minister or the government. It is not about the Chief Minister or the government. It must be so hard to accept that one who has been revered had serious - very gravely serious - moral flaws, but further to that, as a consequence had a profound impact, potentially and allegedly, on many others/ However, we may not find out, we may not know.
This is not about our feelings and our sensitivities. It is about protecting children. We should not be afraid to find the truth, no matter how ugly the truth is, because an ugly truth is easier to stomach than a denied truth when it comes to matters of such importance. Shining a light on this issue is more important than any of us in this place because, if we bury this issue, then we run the risk of burying the truth with Mr Collins. That is not the message to send to other victims if, indeed, there are other victims. It is our duty to take hard choices when we take on this job. I appreciate this must be one of the hardest choices I can ask friends of the late Mr Collins to make. I have absolutely no pleasure at all in asking this of them.
Three of the five victims, Tom E Lewis, Ben Helwend, and Damien Anderson, accused Mr Collins of committing sexual crimes against them. There are at least two other people who have given statements to police also claiming to be victims of Mr Collins. The three who have identified themselves publicly have done so because they need to be believed. Consider the risk that a victim takes when they submit to the court process - the adversarial court process. If, for whatever reason, the accused is found innocent, then the victim has lost a substantial gamble. It is a shattering experience to bare yourself so completely only to have your testimony rejected. Consider that. These are delicate matters for anyone who understands sexual abuse and the impact this has upon a person. I suspect that this not a gamble that any of these men who have been mentioned here took lightly. We must respect, understand and honour that risk with a signal that they can at least have some forum to state their case in the hope that some good will come of it for them and, possibly, for others.
The message needs to go out to other victims, if there are any, to say: ‘Come and be heard. Make your statement and help begin the process of cleaning up the mess’. Sadly, because there is a proven correlation between victims in the past becoming offenders in the future - no one can deny that – we cannot but look. We need to. None of this is to say that all victims become offenders, but there is certainly a proven increase incidence. We must assume that of the five who have spoken to police, that they are telling a genuine story and the events that they relate actually took place.
I have spoken to other victims of child sexual assault and know that the greatest desire for them is the desire to be believed. Yes, they need more than an 1800 number. Not because there is a need to find Mr Collins guilty; that would have been for a court to determine before his death. However, if what they said is true and being believed is an instrumental step in preventing victims becoming offenders, there may be other men out there who would become predators because there has been no intervention and, for them, there has been no day of truth. I have always believed that where the safety of children is concerned, we must err on the side of the caution.
People have already formed their opinions about Mr Collins, and this sort of inquiry will not do much to persuade people of thinking any less or more of him. That is another issue. However, if we can stop a person from turning themselves from a victim into an offender then, for the sake of our children, we must make every effort to find them and offer intervention - offer assistance or help if it is needed. If there are other people who have been subject to the alleged sexual conduct of Mr Collins, then they will probably have children of their own by now. It is those hitherto unidentified children I want to see protected.
The Little Children are Sacred report shows how insipid this issue is. Simply because the accused person was of a high profile, there is no reason to abandon doing all that is needed to protect kids into the future. Indeed, the message should be that nobody will be protected, no matter how important they may be. No stone should be left unturned. We need a person of eminent standing to cast this net. Probably no person in the Territory has the required distance from Mr Collins to do the job without fear or favour, but whoever is selected must be seen to be above reproach.
The motion itself is not prescriptive and is deliberately expressed in an ‘in principle’ fashion. Clearly, if government was to agree to go down this path, some form of terms of reference would have to be agreed upon. There are two ways to do this. First, terms of reference can be established now and by way of amendment to this motion; or second, terms of reference could be established outside of this place and passed by way of motion next week in this House.
Some references that this side of the House would like to see as important, would include the following:
1. a full and discretionary power of investigation for the inquiry head, including a power of subpoena and a reference to refer matters to the DPP;
I made attempts to speak - granted it was at short notice - to the Attorney-General prior to this debate, to see whether there was an interest in approaching the matter of terms of reference and how we could deal with this. Unfortunately, I was unable to have such a meeting. I trust that the spirit of this motion is understood – that the purpose of it is clear. This inquiry should be as wide as it needs to be and there should be power to subpoena evidence and witnesses. I will support any legislative change on urgency for this to occur.
I will say again that I have not deliberately described terms of reference for the inquiry because it needs to be at arm’s-length from us all. Importantly, I will say again, this is not about us. It is about potential victims and offenders. I genuinely feel this appeal to members in this place to support this motion for all the reasons that have been outlined is simply the right thing to do. To do anything less would be contrary to the moral courage required to provide leadership in our community.
I urge members to support the motion.
Mr STIRLING (Justice and Attorney-General): Mr Deputy Speaker, the events surrounding this matter have been traumatic for all parties involved: the alleged victims on one side, and the family of Bob Collins on the other. I think it is proved that over several years, a huge effort - and meticulous and thorough effort - has been made by relevant authorities to ensure that whatever steps were needed to be taken to ensure justice was brought to both sides, were taken. Those steps were, indeed, taken.
That is, I guess, the fundamental operating principle of our legal and judicial system. It is a principle, of course, underpinning the work of the police. I believe they are as good as you will find anywhere in Australia. I commend them for their work on what has been a very difficult matter – as are all cases involving such alleged offences of this nature.
It is clear, and I think for the member for Blain the penny has dropped and he does understand now, with the death of Mr Collins, the legal process is at an end and it can no longer determine guilt or innocence of Mr Collins. It is a fundamental principle of the legal system in Australia that guilt or innocence can only be determined in circumstances where all parties have the opportunity to present their case.
This motion seeks to establish a board of inquiry to determine if any further victims of Mr Collins alleged crimes exist. Originally, what was unclear to me from the motion was what the member for Blain would be hoping to ultimately achieve through that inquiry. That is why the process of hearing a person out can often fill in the gaps. I did glean a bit more from the member for Blain in his explanation behind the motion he had on the books.
I trust the member for Blain recognises now the fundamental difficulty, and in his remarks he has recognised that it is impossible to posthumously determine any guilt or innocence on Mr Collins’ part. Any such attempt, of course, is incompatible with the inherent principles of the Australian judicial system. It is just not possible to continue criminal proceedings or inquiry against a person after they have died. An accused person has to be able to provide instructions in his or her defence. The Prime Minister, no less, recognised this when he was asked about determining the truth or otherwise of the charges. He simply noted:
On that point, he agrees with the Northern Territory Acting Solicitor-General and Director of Public Prosecutions, both of whom have provided the same advice to me.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the more sustainable element of the member for Blain’s motion in using the inquiry is that area of attempting to locate further possible victims to assist them with any trauma experienced. The Northern Territory police have conducted very lengthy and exhaustive investigations in relation to all of these matters before laying any charges. There has been, subsequently, very widespread media coverage, and there has been another alleged victim come forward. I do not think anyone can say that every alleged victim has been identified. Police are confident that they did everything in the depth of the investigation. They have done everything possible to identify alleged victims. They have done everything they could in bringing possible complainants to the trial stage. They have provided all of the support, advice and assistance to them in preparation for trial. I might add that the Witness Assistance Service would also have been involved at that level, advising people of their rights in relation to Crime Victims Compensation which can provide financial assistance. It can certainly provide counselling and support for victims to help them through trauma and difficulties they may have in their personal life as a result of being victims of crime.
The cessation of criminal action in this matter in no way precludes a victim of a violent or sexual offence from coming forward and seeking assistance under the Northern Territory’s comprehensive Victims of Crime Support scheme. The legal matter may have come to an end; that does not preclude in any way the right of victims so far identified or, indeed, any alleged victims not identified to this point, in coming forward and identifying themselves as such and seeking support through the Crime Victims Services Unit to avail themselves of those layers of support available under that scheme. They have to make that decision themselves. Those identified who were supported in the steps to getting the case to trial would know this. They would have been in personal contact with the Witness Assistance Service; no question about that, that is the role of the Witness Assistance Service, the role that they play in preparation of people going to court on these matters.
However, it is up to the person. Any victim, whether they have been identified in the police investigation to date or not, can make that decision, their own personal decision, to come forward and apply to receive those elements of financial assistance, counselling and support. Counselling services are available across the Territory and are overseen by the Department of Justice’s Crime Victims Services Unit. I have talked with the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Justice to ensure that counsellors are fully briefed and aware of the particular issues and concerns of people potentially coming forward regarding this matter.
Assistance and support are available immediately through the Crime Victims Services Unit. They are able to quickly set up free, professional, counselling services as required, and they are able to help a person with any other issues in their life. Ultimately, in cases where a defendant has died before criminal proceedings are finalised, any complainant can also seek, and has the right to seek, compensation through civil proceedings.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this motion will not be supported. We have the support systems in place to assist victims of such crimes. An inquiry, as proposed by the member for Blain, importantly, would not change that level of support which is available there now, and has been for victims already identified, and is there, available immediately, should there be any other alleged victims not identified to this stage. It is up to that individual to identify. These matters are all treated confidentially and discreetly, and that support would be forthcoming immediately.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the motion for a board of inquiry into child sexual abuse allegations against Bob Collins, which my colleague, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, has put before the Assembly today.
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has put forward this motion in good faith, as he has a genuine and sincere desire to help those who feel they are being abandoned. As an elected member of this parliament, and as a mother and a nanna who also shares his concerns, I would expect nothing else.
I have the greatest sympathy for Bob Collins’ wife and his family in this whole tragic saga. However, he is not here now to answer any of the allegations made against him. I also have the greatest sympathy for the alleged victims who have to live with the knowledge that their alleged perpetrator will never face judgment in court.
This motion is not about playing politics, and it certainly is not by any member who would be speaking in this debate. This is about the care of alleged victims, and to give them the opportunity to tell their story and to, hopefully, get some closure to get on with their lives. If there are other victims of child sexual abuse in our community in addition to the five already known to us, they need to be identified and to establish validity of their claims, to assist them to ensure the cycle of abuse is broken, and to ensure they receive the support they need to get on with their lives. We also need to ensure that the three identified people whose names have been made public, and include Tom E Lewis, whom I know, receive all the support possible to assist them in their healing process.
Bob Collins was a member of this parliament. As parliamentarians, we are expected to set the highest standards for our citizens and to have a duty of care to all. We have a huge responsibility to all Territorians, and that includes protecting and assisting victims of sexual abuse regardless of the identity of the perpetrator.
The Little Children are Sacred report was released earlier this year, and it highlighted the terrible incidence of child sexual abuse that has occurred, and is occurring, across our communities. We were all mortified by that report, and some action was and is being taken by both the Commonwealth and the Territory governments to address this. In addition, the Northern Territory government, at the August sittings, introduced the Care and Protection of Children Bill 2007. It is 169 pages of legislation which highlights the importance of protection to children.
The motion that has been put forward today to set up an inquiry into the alleged victims abused by Bob Collins needs the same attention and support from all parliamentarians who sit in this Assembly. I ask all members not to abandon our principles of protection for all children abused, past and present.
I have not spoken to Tom E Lewis. Because of the case being before the court as it was, I had not taken the opportunity to speak to him because I did not want to interfere in the court process. However, since Bob Collins has died, I have attempted to contact him. He has been away but I have spoken to Tom E’s wife. I can assure you that the family feels betrayed by the present situation.
I believe, as my colleagues do, that this board of inquiry as proposed by the Deputy Opposition Leader is an appropriate way to assist and support the alleged victims of child sexual abuse by Bob Collins. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the motion of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
Motion negatived.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, at the outset I offer my sincere condolences to the member for Arafura on hearing of the death of her father. This is a very tragic time for her. I regard her as a friend. Even though we have our occasional sparring times in parliament, that is irrelevant. I am sure the prayers of this parliament are with her at this moment.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I move –
That this Assembly:
(a) states that is has no confidence in the NT government because of the amateurish manner that is has tried to carry out local government reform; and
This motion before us today is in two parts and has come about after a detailed examination of the local government reform process since it began. It also came about because of the overwhelming support from over 250 rural residents who unanimously supported this motion at a Girraween Primary School meeting last week.
The reality is that this local government reform process has been forced on to the people of Litchfield, other councils, and the unincorporated areas. I also say at the outset that I support reform. I have supported - and I have said it publicly - the rating of pastoral properties and mining leases - but using a flat rate - and also the incorporation of unincorporated areas.
This NT government reform is not reform that brings the community with it. This is reform that the government has determined must happen, come hell or high water, and too bad if anyone disagrees. This reform pretends to involve the community through transition committees, but they are just window dressing and not representative of the wider community. If they were, people would not have been turning up at meetings asking so many questions. This reform was supposed to bring so-called savings and benefits or, if we believe the government advertisements, low rates and better services. That is a laugh.
I will now go through from the beginning and highlight how, from day one, the reform process was predetermined by government and they had no intention of moving from that course no matter what they had to do to get there – even, in some cases, using dishonest means.
Look at the local government time line. It was set; there was no consultation. The number of councils: they were set by the government with no consultation. We have documents here, for instance, by Brian Dollery, Joel Byrnes and Lin Crase for the Centre for Local Government for the University of New England. A working paper was brought out this year discussing the merits of large councils, and this document basically says that big is not necessarily better. This is the sort of discussion we needed at the beginning, but we were not allowed to have that debate.
Litchfield Shire was dissolved even after it was told earlier that it was not going to happen. That was forced on by the government - no consultation. The boundaries were set by the government - no consultation. There was some minor tinkering of boundaries permitted with the promise of consultation and the government said that there would be community consultation. The only meeting I knew of in relation to boundaries was one called by the Katherine Town Council, not the government, in relation to the boundaries of Katherine. The funny thing is that, even though these boundaries were supposed to be only tinkered with, the latest boundaries declared for the new so-called Top End Shire shows three pastoral properties which I think include quite a number of mining leases now in the Victoria/Daly Shire.
The government set up transition committees, and I am referring here to the Litchfield one. Litchfield, with a population of 17 000, has two representatives. The other 3000 people in this super shire have 10 representatives. To start with, that is not representative of the community. It is just undemocratic. The other problem with transition committees is the government set them up in theory that they would go out and meet the community. In the 10 months since this process has been going, I do not know of one meeting set up by any member of a transition committee. The meetings we have had were either set up by me or other local members, and we had one meeting organised by the government. One meeting in nine months. Yes, the member for Daly organised three meetings - more than that, sorry - I attended a number of his meetings.
There is talk about the transition committees being the public side of this reform process. The very first transition committee I went to, I was told I was not allowed to attend. The next transition committee I could attend; I had to be sponsored and I was permitted to speak for four minutes. I actually had to put my name on a list to say that I would like to be a speaker. Not exactly the sort of thing that encourages people to voice their opinion. The other thing is they are on a Wednesday during working hours – again, not the sort of thing that encourages the public to come along.
A classic example of what has happened is the transition committee with its 10:2 weighting decided that it would get rid of the name ‘Litchfield’ and use the name ‘Top End’. It goes to the advisory board; the government decides it will be the Top End. Seventeen thousand people on an unrepresentative transition committee are not represented by that decision. Litchfield, although it may be small in the whole process we are talking about today, was a name that related to an early pioneer of the area. That is where we get the name Freds Pass: Fred Litchfield. That is where we get the name Litchfield National Park. So, all of a sudden, we get a name which is no different than a couple of businesses at the 11 Mile.
As I said before, the government called one public meeting in nine months. It was held at Taminmin High School and, if you had been there, you would have seen that whoever organised the meeting did not realise that the venue was far too small. There was standing room only. The government appointed an advisor, Ms Sheila O’Sullivan, if I am correct, whose job was to explain what local government was to an audience that had had local government for 22 years. What annoyed most people was that there were no answers to the questions.
We had a meeting earlier than that at Girraween Primary School; I organised a dual meeting with Terry Mills. From that meeting came a motion which was reflected in the fourth lot of petitions I presented to this parliament today asking the government to slow down because we want to have a serious look at what is happening. We do not want to be forced into the situation of saying yes to something we do not really agree with. There were petitions and there were motions. At the Taminmin High School meeting, there was a motion saying slow the process down. It is not just me; this includes important people in the community like Mr Laurence Ah Toy. He spoke very clearly on this matter. There were many other people who have been in the Litchfield Shire for a long time. I do not think the government understands the depth of feeling here.
There were other meetings. The member for Daly would know what they were and, still, there were problems getting answers. If you read the business plan, things like core functions are already selected. Was there any public consultation on that? We have street lighting, weeds, fires, we have companion animals. The Douglas Daly is going to have companion animal legislation. Where was the public consultation - not just the transition committees, but the public consultation?
When we came to the transition legislation, even though I said many times to the government ‘Please slow this process down’, they rushed the legislation through. They said it was meant to go through in June. They gave it to the advisory board. The advisory board said ‘hang on a bit’, so we hung on. However, when you brought it to this parliament, people like me who surely must have some rights when it comes to legislation, were given the legislation one week and it was passed the next week. It was okay for the advisory board to have a look at it, terrific, and whoever else needs to look at it, but it was rushed through. Maybe there is nothing wrong with that legislation. I did have concerns. How do I have enough time to consult with councils, and with various people who are a bit more knowledgeable, while I am working in parliament? I do not know.
Then you have Labor’s own leader, Mr Rudd, and one of the local House of Representatives people, Mr Snowdon, saying slow down. They do not support forced amalgamations. Of course, you must realise that the Litchfield Shire Council is being forced into amalgamation. Regardless of what federal Labor is saying, you are still ploughing on. What is their reaction to that? We had some advertising that came from the Northern Land Council, the Chamber of Commerce, the NT Minerals Council, Small Business Association of the NT, the Trucking Association of the NT, the Cattlemen’s Association, Territory Construction Association, and the NT Horticultural Association all basically asking: why are you rushing local government reform?
Whether you agree with everything that was written in there is one issue, but the government decided that they would do something about that and so they brought out their own Strong councils, low rates, better services. That was their reaction. They were not going to sit around and take that from anyone. They thought they would bring this out. Lord knows what this has cost to put on the radio, and the television in the middle of the footy. I was a Port Adelaide supporter and we were already being done by 100 points and one of these turned up in front of me. That really cheered me up! Anyway, that is what was being put out time and time again. Many people still ask: ‘Tell me how this works: low rates, better services?’ Give us a break. People in the rural area are not silly.
That is what the government did and this is where it gets hard. The minister then sent out some letters. One of these was on 13 September. This is what really got my blood boiling, and this is why I say this government has been deceptive. It is using some issues related to the council that are not issues that I believe are of its concern. I will come back to it later, but Litchfield is a democratically-elected body. They are saying things like this: ‘Compare that to the fact that since 2003 Litchfield Shire Council has increased your rates by 53%’. That is telling the ratepayers of Litchfield that their rates have gone up by 53%. And why are they telling them that? Because they are trying to tell them the rates have gone up very high. The deception in that is that, if you look at the rates over 22 years, the rates have gone up by an average of 6% - you can do anything with statistics - and that 6% equals roughly $26 a year in rates. When people get the full story, they have a different concept. This letter makes no attempt to show that. It selectively took two major rate increases and made it look like the Litchfield Council was a bunch of so-and-sos.
What made it worse was that it did not attempt to explain why those rates went up. Rates went up for two reasons. First, as you know, councils have meetings with the Federal Assistance Grants Committee, and they get a reasonable idea from having those meetings whether they are going to get more money or less money. One year, they were told they were going to get a reduction in funding, so they increased their rates, because their budget comes out before the Commonwealth money arrives. They took what they thought was the advice and they raised the money. That is one reason the rates went up. I think they went up by 14%.
The other reason was because of the Litchfield landfill site being closed down. We can get into arguments as to why it closed down, and I am quite happy to have a barny about that. The reason they went up is because rubbish has to be taken to Shoal Bay. That is the reason for the increase. Is there anything in here that says that? No! What does it say? ‘And there have been none of the extra services you would expect from such a hike’. Of course, there are no extra services, because this rate increase had a reason.
What you are trying to twist that to say: ‘Oh, you have bumped the rates up; therefore, you should get extra services’. There are two things that are wrong: (1) that there was a reason for those rates going up and, (2) because rates go up does not necessarily mean you expect extra services. The cost of providing the existing services might have gone through the roof because of petrol prices, bitumen - you name it - insurance, the cost of the contract, because Litchfield is a contract council. So, you cannot say that just because the rates went up you should have extra services; that column is deceptive. That thing was trying to hoodwink people, and that is what got me so annoyed.
Minister, at a meeting on 26 August, you also said - and I have the notes here in my little book - that, in relation to the rates – and the member for Daly was there – that it will come back to the transition committee about what the rates would be. This meeting was held on 26 August at Dundee. Then, minister, you declared the rates capped for three years, the actual rate and the type of rating system, and there was no consultation with the transition committee, no consultation with the people, and no consultation, for instance, with businesses. I have been around to some businesses lately, delivering my newsletter. I have not found one business that has realised that their rating system had changed; that they now will be paying UCV if the value of their land is high. You have to remember, we have not had any other rating system but flat rate. You would have thought, if big brother government is going to come in and declare the rates, that it would have discussed that with business. I can tell you now, you would be pushing to find anyone in Litchfield Shire who wants the flat rate changed, but you have enforced the flat rate on the mining, pastoral and business properties. You have introduced something that we do not have, we did not want.
Another thing with the capping of the rates is that you have not stated what the Aboriginal service fees will be, or what the fees will be for Aboriginal land. Although the business plan mentions agricultural/pastoral, the fact sheet which was sent out only mentions pastoral properties. Therefore, you have two areas which are missing from your rate capping; that is, what will Aboriginal people pay as a service fee or a rate; and what will be the rate for agriculture land? I refer specifically, of course, to Douglas Daly land. It has been said to me time and time again by people there that they do not even have a valuation of the land yet, but we have capped the rates.
What I find hard to believe, and perhaps people do not understand, is that people like the flat rate because they believe it is a fee for service. When you look at what has been put forward in the business plan, you see that what is being pushed is something which goes right against what people in the rural area accept. This is what the preliminary business plan said on page 40:
What that is saying is totally against the philosophy of Litchfield Shire. Litchfield Shire has never said: ‘You own a large block of land, therefore, you must be rich; you own a business, therefore, you can afford to pay’. We have said: ‘You will pay a service fee across the board’. It is like catching the bus. We do not say: ‘Excuse me, sir, are you getting on at Fannie Bay? It is $10. Oh, you are getting on at Karama, it is $5. Are you getting on in a suburb in Palmerston? That will be $4’. We do not work that way. That is the philosophy Litchfield Council has held for 22 years, and the government has enforced, by capping the rates, not only the value of the rates but the type of rating. It has enforced a UCV system that no one has asked for.
As well as that, the government released its business plan for public discussion. What is so amazing with this business plan is that it says on the front cover: ‘Draft Version 1 for Community Consultation’. One of the keys items in this draft preliminary business plan is the rating options. This is for community consultation and it has three draft options: one is flat rate; one is UCV; and the other is a combination. Before this has gone out for community consultation, the government has taken Option 3 out of here and declared: ‘You will have it for three years’. One of the core platforms of this business plan has been decided with no community consultation. Why would you bother looking at the business plan? It is like going to get a loan before you know the cost of the house. It is silly.
There are many assumptions in here. There are the assumptions about the amount of money you are going to get for road upgrades. You have sections which say: ‘Total additional funding being sought by the NT government, $5.2m’. Being sought! You have: ‘Current levels of NT-wide DPI road maintenance costs to be transferred between $2.4m and $7.4m’. We do not know how much will come. You have: ‘One-off road funding upgrade being sought, $10m’. I went to a meeting last Tuesday with Jim Lloyd, the federal minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads. He said: ‘I have not offered them any extra money. I have this letter in front of me. I need more information and this is not a fait accompli or something I can say is going to happen’. Yet, that money is in the business plan. That is the money which is used to work out the cost of running the roads, and it is part of how you worked out the rates.
On top of that, there are several areas in here which you cannot use in the budget. One is the Black Spot Program. This program is decided by applying to the government to get money. This year you might get it, next year you will not. You cannot put a value in there that is the same each year because you do not know. Another one, Litchfield has this wonderful thing called ‘ratepayer contribution’ where people pay for their roads. The latest information I have from Litchfield is that most of those roads that were on the ratepayer contribution scheme have now been completed. There would still be some money in the bank account but there were not many roads to be done. You cannot put the ratepayer contribution at roughly $600 000 to $656 000 a year. You do not know that. You do not know the developer contributions because it depends on how many subdivisions will occur. That is a very dubious figure to put there when the facts are not before you. There are a number of issues in that business plan on which you based your rating, and I believe cannot be assumed.
The government is claiming the federal government supported these amalgamations. They may have given some money for IT changes; I know they received some money for that. When this was asked of Jim Lloyd, he said: ‘The federal government has not funded amalgamations. It supports voluntary amalgamations’. That is from the federal minister at that meeting last Tuesday. The question was put to him and he said that. Maybe the feds supported the principle of amalgamations but, according to Jim Lloyd, they have not funded them and they only support voluntary amalgamations. It is no different to federal Labor.
I will give you a few other areas that I think are of concern. The community has had no say over the number of councillors. Litchfield Council has four councillors for 17 000 people. There is only one option in this paper, in this business plan; that is, there will be 12 councils. All it does is a variation on 12 councils. You have increased your councils by three times for only 3000 people. Was that discussed amongst the community? I did not get a feeling the other night when we had the meeting that was a good idea at all. Four councillors can handle 17 000 people okay. Why don’t we have eight councillors? I do not know. People were not involved. It might say there are some options in the business plan, but the number of councillors is set. There is no debate on whether we should have one councillor per ward, or two councillors per ward. In this document it is two councillors per ward.
I do not want to get into an argument whether the type of rating system is a good or bad system. I have spoken in this parliament before about if you are going to have multiple candidates in wards you should perhaps look at the system in Tasmania. I am not going to get into whether that is good or bad. The issue I am raising here is that there is no debate about that. It actually said the preferential system will be, and that is it.
The government said to Cox Peninsula and Belyuen: ‘Have a look at whether you belong to Darwin’. I think they gave them $20 000 and there was certainly a strong impression that that was likely to happen. It appears that they voted for it. The minister may have other information on that, and I am happy to listen to that. But the number of phone calls and e-mails from Cox Peninsula people tells me they are not very happy. The problem is that now that they have gone back into the Top End Shire, the preliminary business plan does not take that into account. It says it would not make a huge effect but, again, you have a business plan that presumes Cox Peninsula/Belyuen will be one council and now they have come back into this council. It does make some changes when you are looking at the wards and the ward structure.
Also, as has been mentioned today, we talked about the CEOs and how the South Australian company, Locher, has the job to go out and advertise for them. I looked up the web page last week, and it said they will only be based in these various areas. That has changed. I asked the minister today and I still do not have that clear. I do not believe going to the transition committee or whatever is the process. When you elect your CEO, and you only have nine councils, you would expect your CEO to at least work in that community. What sort of message is that going to send out to the people? Litchfield people are not going to appreciate you having a CEO in Darwin. No way. You have a perfectly good council office at Freds Pass, on Bees Creek Road - not Bees Creek. It is in the Freds Pass District Centre. That is where they would expect their CEO. That is where they expect their Director of Corporate Services. Certainly, they will travel around the area, but that is where they will expect to see them.
I organised a meeting the other day. It was my organisation. I know the minister said on Stateline that it was organised by Jodeen Carney; it was organised by me. I paid the advertising. The only adverts …
Mr Bonson: Murphy said she could not get 250 people unless she gave away free grog.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Millner! Member for Nelson, please continue.
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Would the member for Millner like to retract that? Are you saying I gave out free grog?
A member: No, no.
Mr WOOD: Sorry.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Millner, I did not hear that.
Mr WOOD: I did not catch what was said.
Mr BONSON: Mr Deputy Speaker, no, I was referring to Peter Murphy’s article in the Sunday Territorian, which said that Jodeen Carney could not attract more than 200 people to any function without giving out free grog.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Millner. There is no point of order, please continue.
Mr WOOD: I am sorry, member for Millner. I only caught the end of it. The CLP asked whether they could attend. I said yes and the opposition member came to that meeting, but it was my organisation. They are the facts.
Minister, on the Stateline program, you said that Litchfield is not viable into the future and have the modelling to prove it. I asked in the beginning why you were dissolving Litchfield. It has always been said that it is not viable into the future.
Now you say there is a model. If it is around, why was it not produced right at the beginning? I have heard about the $500 000 being taken off federal assistance grants. In fact, I found out today Litchfield is not going to lose money. They are actually getting a slight increase in money. Next year, there will be some changes with the federal assistance grants, but so what? It has money in the bank. It is an expanding council. If it is going to lose money from the federal assistance grants, then maybe it has to put up its rates. If you told the public that is the reason their rates are going up, you have a fair chance they will accept it. They might not like it, but that is not a reason for dissolution of a council. That is a punishment for the federal assistance grants being reduced. Leave that up to the council to sort out, not for the government to use it as an excuse to get rid of the council.
From beginning to end, we have had little or no community consultation - real community consultation, not gammon community consultation. There was one meeting in Litchfield for 17 000 people. That is one government meeting, which was an absolute failure. We had a lady going around telling us how Woolworths do not pay enough rates. No idea why they do not pay those rates and no idea that Woolworths itself does not pay the rates; Bob Biddlecombe does.
The people of Litchfield may at times be unhappy with their council, but that is why you have council elections. That is why you have local government democracy. I do not always support my council. There are a couple of issues that really give me the creeps, but that is for me to work out with my council. If you do not like your council, you vote for someone you support. That is not the role of the NT government.
Mr CONLAN: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move an extension of time for the member for Nelson pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Thank you. If you do not like your council, you can stand yourself or vote for someone you support. That is not the role of the NT government sticking its beak in. If a council was corrupt, that may be a good reason. The Litchfield Council has been targeted by this government. Here is a council that tried to keep costs down. It has only 10 staff and four vehicles. It does not go off on Sister Cities trips or jaunts, pays it president and councillors peanuts, runs most of the reserves with volunteers, tries innovative ways of sealing roads to the local rate, has an infrastructure development levy, has been a pioneer in protecting wetlands and waterways from development, encourages the motto ‘Community Effort is Essential’, has kept away from over-regulation, and always stuck to its core functions of roads, reserves and rubbish.
It is a financially healthy council with reserves. It needs to cover depreciation of its assets. It is not in debt, even though the Collins report tends to say that is not a bad idea. It has never been in debt and it is not dysfunctional. The question you have to ask is: why is this government really dissolving this council? If there is a reason, minister, please tell me why Katherine Town Council, which just increased its boundaries about to the same as the existing Litchfield Shire Council, was not dissolved and why were Darwin and Palmerston not amalgamated?
I believe it is discriminatory, unfair and, to some extent, vindictive. It is well known - and I knew this even in my time on the council - that some in government have a strong dislike for Litchfield Shire, and that can be seen by the garbage that was spread around during the debate on the closure of the Humpty Doo tip which, looking back, seemed to be part of a deliberately orchestrated campaign to get at the council.
There are also the untruths about the reserves. I have heard it from government people saying: ‘Oh, Litchfield Council has all these reserves’. Those reserves are there because they managed their money well and they knew that, at some time, those reserves might be needed. There was a requirement under the Australian Accounting Standards to have reserves, a percentage of your assets. Even the money that the council has comes nowhere near the true percentage of the assets required. They did have money, and you should compare that, say, with Palmerston Council which, two years ago, raised its rates considerably because it did not have enough assets to seal certain roads that required sealing. Litchfield has not gone down that path.
For all the good things this council has done, the Northern Territory government seems to have gone after it with a vengeance and tried to use the issues of dogs, rubbish, libraries and the swimming pool to divide the community and use those issues as a smokescreen for the dictatorial actions it is taking. Rural residents might not always like their council, and have some gripes with it from time to time, but they would rather the devil they know than the devil the government is trying to foist on them.
The government has pursued this reform process relentlessly without bringing the people along. The process has been amateurish and foolish, but the people have not thrown that entire concept away. They have said to the government, start again and involve them from the very beginning, which you never did. Take your time and be flexible. That is the challenge for this government. You told the people in Litchfield and surrounding areas they would be one council - that is it, you do not have any other options. I am not against that area being under local government, but why did the community not have a chance to have a say? One, two, or three councils might have been the answer. There was no discussion at the beginning, and that is what set this off. The reason I have not done anything until now is because I have never had enough information to say whether I support it. I always said in the beginning: ‘I support it, but I want to see the fine print’. The fine print has turned up and I do not accept it ...
Mr Henderson interjecting.
Mr WOOD: You, member for Wanguri, support Darwin and Palmerston being amalgamated and I might believe you.
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr WOOD: The challenge for this government, if it does not support at least the second half of this resolution - and I am happy to have the motion voted on in two parts if people want that – is that the anger of rural residents will continue into the federal election and on to the next Territory election. That does not need to happen if the government would just simply start again. The government needs to weigh up carefully what it is going to do. You can enforce your local government reform on the people and take the consequences of many bitter and resentful rural folk at the next election. I will say, minister, read the minutes from the May transition committee. I did not see too many happy statements made about all this.
You can start again and involve the community, find an acceptable solution which will do what you want; it will bring reform to Northern Territory local government and it will keep most people happy. You will never satisfy everybody; there are some people out there who do not want to pay any rates as all. I do not support that, but the way we are going is not going to help the bigger community.
Your concept of councils is a specified number of ABS numbers for people, multiplied by economic rationalism, divided by bureaucracy gone mad. What you have forgotten is the community. You will have councils as big as Victoria, and no one has been able to question you about that. If anyone looked at that map, you would have to ask, what are we doing? You just make the decisions and ignore any real debate or community involvement.
Litchfield is a community. It is an existing community. It is made up of football clubs, old timers, gardeners, families, school kids, workers, the lot. I say, pop down to Freds Pass and have a look at how many kids use Freds Pass for sport. See the people at the Freds Pass Show, the cattle and the polocrosse and the show jumpers and the Scouts. Litchfield has a community, and that is the part of this debate that has been avoided. It is all about the economics. It is all about dollar plus dollar plus dollar. In fact, I do not see anything in the preliminary business plan that talks about the importance of community, and that is what is being missed.
Minister, the choice is yours. Start again, listen and work with the community. It is up to the government. If not, I guarantee I will fight this all the way, and I believe many other people will fight this issue all the way.
Minister, when I went to that meeting, I put some issues to the people. The meeting was not a wild meeting. There were no insulting remarks, except for some remarks from some bloke and that was not relevant to the meeting. People listened, they asked some questions, and we put some motions to them. They did not abuse the government. Most people at all the meetings have said they do accept that some reforms of local government should happen in the Northern Territory. What they are saying is you have not brought us along; you have enforced these things. You have enforced one council; you have changed the name of the council. You have enforced the type of rates; you have enforced how much the rates will be. You have not asked the people what they thought of that. Until you ask those people, and involve the real people - not the transition committee that is weighted 10:12 against the people of Litchfield – in the decision-making process, you will be seen as an enforcer - an enforcer of some government policy that has not involved the community. That is, sadly, why this process is running off the rails.
You may continue with this process; I cannot stop that. All I can say is that I know there are many people in the rural area who are proud of their Litchfield Shire even though they might not like it. They like the rural lifestyle. They like the flat rates. They like the low regulations. There are some issues and they are issues for the council to discuss as a democratically elected local government body. Whether it is dogs, swimming pools, or rubbish, that is not for the government to be telling Litchfield people about. Let them work it out. Let them vote for new councillors. Let them vote for new policies. Let them deal with it in a democratically elected council.
Until that happens, minister, I believe that this will continue to run off the rails, and more and more people will get angry. The number of people who are already ringing me up about the rally next week - which is going to be held on Wednesday. If people who are reading this debate would like to join in that rally – it is not going to be wild or on the steps of parliament; it is simply going to drive through town. We will meet at Mindil Beach at 11.30 am and will move off at 12.15 pm. There will be some balloons and streamers and a bit of noise, but it is a symbolic rally to say to the government: ‘We are not happy. We want you to change. We want you to stop. We want you to start again’.
Minister, if you do that, it might muck up your timetable – a timetable of thou shalt not stop - but, in the end, you would end up with a far better result and you would get the process back on the rails and achieve the goals you are trying to achieve.
Mr McADAM (Local Government): Mr Deputy Speaker, I have listened with interest to some of the issues raised by the member for Nelson. It is very important to understand that, whilst I appreciate and respect his points of view on the issues that surround the Litchfield Shire, this government has always made it very clear that we are dealing with issues that impact across the whole of the Northern Territory.
On not one occasion did I hear the member for Nelson make any reference to those councils, or any proposals or any issues, outside of his particular area of interest. Sadly, that is one of the issues that we have faced in the past in the context of where we go with local government. In many cases, we become very insular, very isolated, and we believe that what we do at a regional level within our respective shires is the best. I am no different in respect to Tennant Creek. We cannot afford to stand still. We cannot afford to sit back, rest on our laurels, and expect the outcomes into the future, in the interests of all Territorians, including those in the Litchfield Shire.
The member for Nelson referred to the Girraween meeting which, I suppose in a way, brought a change of mind on his part in respect to where he might go in regard to these reforms. I know that in the past, the member for Nelson has supported local government reform. In what form, that is still to be determined. I know for a fact that he has supported the idea of the incorporation of the whole of the Northern Territory in regard to local government models, or a new form of local government. He did that when he was Vice President of LGANT. Member for Nelson, you and I might disagree in how we get there, but we have an abiding position of the need to put in place these sort of changes which are going to bring maximum benefits not only for people in Litchfield but right across the Northern Territory.
You made reference to the 250-odd people who were at that meeting. I want to make reference to the thousands of other people across the Northern Territory who support these reforms, who are engaged in providing advice, not only to me as the minister through the advisory board, but through transition committees. There are in excess of 300 people across the Northern Territory who are involved in this particular process. That sort of input should never be ignored. Equally so, there are opportunities in the context of those people who live in the Litchfield Shire, in regards to the Top End Shire, to be part of that process, and they have been part of it. A transition committee is in place, and they have had people on the advisory board. Therefore, from day one, the people you refer to in Litchfield, member for Nelson, have had ample opportunity to be able to engage in this process.
I have to say from day one there has been an intent on the part of those people out there - not all, because I happen to speak to people from that area as well – who, essentially, do not want any change whatsoever. They believe the world is going to wait for them to catch up, but that is not the case. The Top End Shire, including Litchfield, potentially, will be one of the most dynamic, innovative, economically viable shires into the future. You know that as well as I do.
The creep to the south from Darwin is happening as we speak. There have been many requests from people in the Litchfield area and the Cox Peninsula area regarding development opportunities. I spoke to Mary Walshe, the President, about two months ago and she admitted that, effectively, as a shire collectively for that area, they did not have an understanding of where they might end up. This opportunity for a new form of local government incorporating the Top End Shire would allow that to occur.
I will give you this assurance, as I did to Mary Walshe. I advised her that we would fund a planning development project in the context of where they might end up in the future. We would also do that in regards to the other shires across the Northern Territory. The reason why I said it in regards to the Top End Shire was because of a request from her for it to occur. She is aware of the pressures which are in place right across that particular area, and it is for that reason that these sorts of changes should occur.
I want to respond to some of your other concerns, member for Nelson, particularly around the Litchfield Shire. The suggestion that Litchfield may not be part of the new Top End Shire in terms of a name is false. No decision has been made. If the transition committee, or you, or any other members, wants to put to me any suggestions or ideas of what the Top End Shire might be called, and if you want to incorporate Litchfield into that - certainly. Why not? Let us consider it. I do not see it as my role as a minister to determine what the name might be. Quite properly, that would be responsibility of the shire, and I have made that very clear across the Northern Territory. The names you have are indicative only; they are names which have been developed over time as a result of discussions within the shires and within the transition committees. If Litchfield wants to become part of the new shire, once it is named, up there in lights, put it up. I suspect that the shire might want to consider that at some time in the future.
You also talked about matters regarding the federal Leader of the Opposition, Kevin Rudd, and Warren Snowdon, the member for Lingiari, who has been urging me to slow down. Obviously I take into consideration their points of view, as indeed, I do yours. Equally so, Mal Brough, the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. Contrary to what you say, Jim Lloyd has put in writing to me that he supports these reforms and believes they are the mechanism which are going to provide certainty, opportunity, and a new way of doing things in the bush, allowing investment in the bush, something which has been lacking for a very long time.
You suggest that there are other positions out there in terms of Rudd and Snowdon. As I said, I respect that but, at the same time, I have to take into consideration the interests of all people in the Northern Territory despite what political pressure might be brought to bear upon me or the government. It is for that reason that we remain committed to the time frames.
I am not going to delude you in any way in what we might do into the future. What I can say to you very clearly is that we are absolutely committed to this reform. We are committed to this reform in the context of the whole Northern Territory because we know, you know, the member for Greatorex knows, that we cannot allow things to occur as they have in the past. There has been ample evidence from ministers and members of this House on either side, over a very long period of time, who have bemoaned the fact that local government simply does not work in the regions and the remote areas of the Northern Territory. It is for that reason we are doing it.
As I said to you before, you, as Vice President of LGANT, made very clear your position. You never opposed it in the past. All I am saying to you is think about the whole of the Northern Territory. If there are issues in the Litchfield Shire that we believe that we can accommodate, I am happy to look at them, as I have always said to you during this process. I am always happy to look at it. The fact is that, unfortunately, there has been a group of people who do not want to engage in the process because they do not want change. That is fine. That is there prerogative. I do not think they can hold the rest of the Northern Territory to ransom, and that is what they are attempting to do. Might I say, member for Nelson, I hope that you are not going down that path.
There are other matters that I want to raise which I think are very important. Since we have announced this local government reform and, as an indication of a confidence that governments have - not only the Northern Territory government but, indeed, the Commonwealth government has - in this reform, it is very important to understand the dollars that have been coming forward not only in establishing this model, this new form of local government, but also in investing for the future of people who are going to be part of this reform.
As a result of a whole host of misinformation that has been circulated, not only in the media but in other forms - and you are not excluded from this, member for Nelson - I place on the record that if you do have a very strong management model incorporating strong accounting, administrative practices and principles, then you will get investment. I ask you, member for Nelson, to look to the past and ask yourself the question: has there been any confidence on the part of whatever government, federal or locally in the NT, to invest? The answer is no. Under this reform, I believe there will be a greater confidence on the part of the Commonwealth government and the Northern Territory government to invest in a well-managed model.
By way of information, the Commonwealth government provided $4.9m for the appointment of development coordinators. The Northern Territory government has already committed $1.6m. That is a total of $6.5m invested in a process they believe will have outcomes. The $6.4m came from Senator Coonan, the Australian government, to fund business information systems under the Clever Networks Program. We submitted that on the basis that we believe that this new local government reform was the way to go forward and, quite rightly, the Commonwealth government agreed and invested $6.4m. That shows confidence in where we are heading with this reform. As a result of the establishment, the Northern Territory government contributed $9.9m over two years to allow this process to begin.
Further to that, we have had a $60m investment on the part of both the Commonwealth and Northern Territory governments for jobs for local people. God knows only too well how important it is to get jobs out there in the communities. Local government has provided the confidence for the Commonwealth and Northern Territory governments to fund $30m each over three years. That is $60m to provide real jobs for people, to allow people to have real employment opportunities but, more importantly, to get a proper wage. Ask yourself the question: would that sort of investment have been forthcoming had we not made these sorts of changes?
There are other dollars we have announced as a result of Closing the Gap. There are indigenous people who live in the Litchfield Shire, in the Top End Shire, who are going to be beneficiaries of this, as will all people who live in the new shires, whether they are indigenous or non-indigenous. They are all going to benefit from the dollar input.
There is $3m over three years to establish local community boards, to provide them with support. There is $5m to provide local community governments. Surely, we all recognise that has been one of the big issues in this local government reform? There is $4.5m to provide sport and recreation facilities and programs in each of the shires. The point I am trying to make is that whilst I understand and appreciate your concerns that might relate to the Litchfield Shire and its involvement in the Top End Shire, it is important to understand that these reforms will provide the real benefits right across the Northern Territory, quite apart from your concerns as they relate to the Top End Shire.
Another issue which is very important is that sometimes we equate the shire model with conventional, historic, traditional local government practices and principles, the core services of rates, roads, and rubbish, all those sort of things. We in the Northern Territory have an opportunity to develop something that is very special, very different, to incorporate all those principles that we have traditionally known that surrounds local government, but to have a look at how we can provide other services and how we can attract other opportunities into our regions. By having a strong CEO, strong corporate service managers, strong back-up support, real investment on the part of government; they are the opportunities that will become evident over time.
You raised some other issues as well, member for Nelson, in respect of Locher being retained by local government to recruit the CEOs and the corporate service managers. I readily acknowledge that the information that went up on the Locher site in the first instance was inaccurate. It did not reflect this government’s position in where the CEOs and corporate service managers might be placed. Obviously, in the case of the Top End Shire Council - and I have told this to Mary Walshe - it would be silly to base those positions anywhere other than where the existing office is. We have not changed our mind one bit.
For your information, subject to ongoing discussions and negotiations, the CEOs and corporate service managers will be based where the existing shire is. That is the logical thing to occur, as will be the case for Tennant Creek in my electorate, the Barkly Shire. That is not going to Alice Springs. Those positions will be based in Tennant Creek, equally, in respect to Arnhem East either at Nhulunbuy or Yirrkala. Those negotiations are ongoing. There is no suggestion that they are going to be based in Darwin. The same applies to Arnhem West. There is no suggestion that it is going to be in Darwin or Katherine. My understanding is that there are options open in regards to Jabiru. They are even talking about having the community services component based at Maningrida. The same applies to the Gulf Shire; that will be based in Katherine. That is the advice I am getting from the group of people there. There is a great degree of capacity to ensure that the expertise of people that we recruit will be based in the regions or the shires that we refer to.
You might have been getting mixed up in the business information systems. They will be based in Katherine, Darwin and Alice Springs. Very clearly, contrary to what you believe or what you hear, I want to give you this assurance that there will be an absolute focus to ensure that these positions are based on the ground in the regions to support the new model, and to provide guidance.
There are other matters that I want to respond to regarding what you raised. You referred to the rates, and you were concerned about the rating model determined by the Northern Territory government regarding the new Top End Shire Council. It is fair to say that we have put in place a very fair response to what clearly was causing lot of concern. We had people running around the countryside saying all of a sudden that these rates are going to go up by $40 000, $50 000. I heard that. The bottom line is that we have maintained the flat rate for those people who are residential landholders. The flat rate applies. We have put in place different configurations for commercial and pastoral, and I believe those to be very fair and reasonable formulas which responds to positions put by the Top End Shire that they wanted low rates and minimal services. Of course, we have done that.
I do not think anyone can doubt that because, if you go elsewhere in Australia and in some of the other municipal council areas of the Northern Territory, and ask yourself if the rates in the Top End Shire are not reasonable compared to the others. I respectfully put to you, and all the ratepayers out there, that we have put in place a very fair and equitable response. We are looking after the battlers. We are ensuring that there is economic modelling into the future that will, at the very least, be able to provide the minimal-type services required by the Top End Shire.
We have sent a very strong message to the rest of the Northern Territory of how we might configure the rates. What has occurred in the Top End is indicative of what will happen right across the Northern Territory. As I say, this is an emerging model; we are not amalgamating existing local government models. This is a brand new model and this government acknowledges that we have to ensure that we place a very supportive, hands-on role over the next three to four years in getting these models up. There is a lot of fear out there. I believe that we have quite clearly alleviated some of the concerns, mischief, and humbug being spread by people who, essentially, did not want to be part of the process in the first place.
The other point I want to raise is to make very clear that this was not something that this government rushed into when we embarked on this process. It is not something we thought we would do because we wanted to be vindictive to the Litchfield Shire. That is exactly what you implied. I defy you to name any instance, nominate any occasion, where I have been less than fair in dealing with all people in the Top End shire, including those in Litchfield. You nominate a time where I have deliberately gone out of my way to be vindictive or, indeed, to compromise the good people you speak about. I can assure that that has not been the case. I made it very clear to you in a meeting that you and I had regarding where we might go around the ratings, where I said to you: ‘You are not going to get me coming out there and bagging individual people who are peddling misinformation and mistruths’. So, get it out of your mind that this is an attack by the Northern Territory government to penalise or to compromise those people in Litchfield.
I am not too interested in what has occurred in the past in Litchfield. What I do know is that the Top End model, the Top End proposal, is a sound one, it is a strong one, it is going to provide real opportunity for people who reside in that region into the future, as it will for those people who reside outside that proposed shire.
As I have said to you before, member for Greatorex, ask yourself the question: are existing community government councils - whether they are community government councils, or association councils which carry out local government functions, or Office of the Registrar of Aboriginal Corporations organisations - viable going forward? If you think they are, then please, mount an argument. Tell me what we are doing wrong, because I can assure you that they are not. This is not in any way a slight on those people who have worked so hard with little resources, with little expertise. They have been battered from pillar to post because they are small, because they are not listened to, because we, as governments, conveniently push them aside or play them as political footballs.
Ask yourself the question: should we allow that to continue into the future? Again, the answer is no. You just cannot afford to allow what has occurred in the past to go on into the future regarding communities outside the major municipal councils of the Northern Territory.
We have to understand that we live in the 21st century. I have said this before: the people of the Northern Territory have matured immensely over the last five, 10 years, and that is indicative of what you see right across the Northern Territory. People recognise that we belong to one jurisdiction, to one state, and that we genuinely now want to engage to ensure that the opportunities that are available are shared. It is fair to say that in the past - and I have said this before, and I will continue to say it - I do not think we have paid due respect or due recognition of people outside the major cities.
This is what it is all about. It is all about cattlemen, road houses, small businesses, tourism, indigenous people, it is all of them working together for the best possible outcomes. They are the people who live in the bush, and they should be afforded a new form of local government, a new model, to allow themselves an opportunity to have the same quality of life that you and I take for granted, member for Nelson.
I have heard you talk about your involvement at the Daly and the programs you ran there, and how things have changed, and that it is not like it was in the old days. The fact is that it will never be the same; things move on. That does not mean to say you do not deny the people at the Daly or Tennant Creek, Borroloola, the Tiwis, Nhulunbuy or anywhere else that opportunity. You do not deny them a very robust form of governance to allow them to do the things they want to do.
Member for Nelson, I appeal to you to bear that in mind because, whilst I appreciate and respect your concerns as they relate to Litchfield Shire, this is bigger than Litchfield Shire. Indeed, it is bigger than the Top End Shire. It is incumbent on us; we have a duty to put in place something that can work. Traditionally and historically, local government reform has always been tough. It has always been hard. You only have to look at what Kennett did a few years ago in Victoria or what Fraser tried to do in Queensland ...
Mr NATT: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move an extension of time for the member for Barkly pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr McADAM: At the very least, we have put in place what I believe to be a very robust form of allowing people to have opportunities, to be able to consult, to provide input. There is any number of examples - and I am not going to use them to justify myself today - where we have been flexible enough to change, to ensure that people’s views are put to the advisory and transition bodies. We have been prepared to listen to those arguments.
In all honesty, member for Nelson, I suspect that there are some people who do not want to do anything. They want to stay as they are. They want to stand still and they do not want to be part of a process. I respect that. If you have 250, 300 or 500 people in your area, and they are opposed to change, let me know about it. If we can make some changes that might entertain their position, we will do that. I will tell you this, though: I am not going to sacrifice the opportunities for countless thousands of other Territorians. I will not do that. I do not think this government will, either.
It is for that reason I am not going to stop the process and this government is not going to stop the process. Sure, we are prepared to listen and make changes where we can to ensure that the best possible outcomes apply to each of the respective shires, and that includes the Top End.
In conclusion, I respect what you say. I respect what other people say. They have to respect the fact that this government has made a decision and that this government has to provide the best possible outcomes for all Territorians. For that reason, I ask you to re-engage in the process, as I have said to so many others. We will listen to you. We may not always agree with you, but we will always give you an opportunity to tell us what you think we might be able to achieve within the time frames and the framework that we have put in place.
The same applies to the member for Greatorex, the opposition spokesperson on local government. The invitation is extended to you, but if you want to go out and play politics, do so at your own peril. You have to understand that unless you have the courage and the guts to confront the issues, then you are not going to make a mark in this place. This is a great opportunity for you, member for Greatorex, to make a real difference. Sure, play politics with me but, at the same time, make a difference. That is why you chose to become a local member; to make a difference, just like the former member for Greatorex, Richard Lim, before you, like every other member on this side of the House. Make a difference to those people who, quite frankly, I believe, have not been treated with the respect they deserve over a long period of time.
This is what it is all about, member for Nelson. It is not about putting the boots into Litchfield, not at all. It is providing an opportunity for all Territorians.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Mr Deputy Speaker, I offer my condolences to the member for Arafura for the terrible news that she has just received. Our thoughts from this side of the House are with her and her family today.
Mr Deputy Speaker, much has been said on this subject in recent weeks and months. I had a bit to say on it in the last parliamentary sittings. I do not know if there is much more that can be said when it comes to our position. However, I will add to this debate and in support of the motion from the member for Nelson.
The CLP supports local government reform, and we have always said that we do. We have never shied away from that. We just do not support this approach by the Northern Territory government. We believe in taking the people along with you, not a forced steamroll-style, which this appears to be, and a model that recognises councils which are performing and supports those councils which are not performing.
There has been no real meaningful consultation with Territorians. If there was, there would not be such public outcry and concern about this. Three hundred people just the other week is a good indication of how concerned people are. There is a whole range of questions that Territorians want answered, but the minister is unable to do so. The public meeting at Berry Springs a couple of months ago was a good example of that. Hundreds of Territorians have expressed their concern, yet it continues to fall on deaf ears, so much so that the Cattlemen’s Association has decided to bypass the Minister for Local Government and go straight to the Chief Minister. Warren Snowdon, the member for Lingiari, as mentioned before, and Kevin Rudd, have both suggested and urged the Territory Minister for Local Government to slow down on this. They do not support the forced style of amalgamation, yet this government continued to plough on.
You have to ask what it will actually take for them to slow down and listen. Perhaps it will take a rally. We saw the results of that in Alice Springs when 500 people protested against the Chief Minister during the parliamentary sittings, and that got some action. Perhaps the rally which is being organised for next week will produce some action. Many people from the meeting at Girraween last week will turn up for that, so we might see some action from that from the minister.
All petitions and all motions asking the government to slow down have failed. The government has chosen to embark on an advertising campaign accusing critics of the planned amalgamations of being poorly informed. It is quite ironic that a group of concerned stakeholders, who have called themselves A Community Speaks Out, have said that the lack of information is exactly what the campaign is about; the information vacuum.
They have already drawn up the boundaries, as we have seen in the map, without any consultation. I have said before and will say it again, and I know that the member for Nelson has said this, that they have gone through, drawn up these boundaries without any consultation with those whom it might affect. Some of those are, of course, the size of Victoria, 1500 km apart. The member for Nelson put it very well the other night that that is a long way to take a grader. One of those boundaries shires - I think it is No 12 - stretches from Western Australia right through to Queensland. That is a long way.
Some points were raised by concerned stakeholders such as the Minerals Council, the Northern Land Council and the Cattlemen’s Association. A couple of those were: that strong councils must have a sense of community, not stretched from Queensland to the Western Australian border; and the super shires are the size of Victoria and appear to have been based on statistical boundaries, not communities of interest. How on earth can a shire the size of Victoria adequately give representation to the hundreds of dispersed communities and pastoral properties? How is this efficient?
Another point raised is how does throwing several dysfunctional councils together create a functional council, and what happens to the many well-run community councils that are thrown into the poor ones? Another query is that the super shires creation has not been done on indigenous family or skin clan basis. The Northern Land Council is concerned that the government has split country; this reform has been done at the expense of community. Another couple of concerns: why will the Northern Territory government not freely give up information about shire amalgamation that is asked for? Again, the minister cannot answer those questions.
There is a mountain of correspondence, of course. Here is one from the Cox Peninsula Community Government Council. The last paragraph says the report prepared on the proposed Top End Shire is a joke, and it does not provide any confidence that the new shire will work or that it will be financially sustainable once government support funding is withdrawn.
This one is from the Chamber of Commerce regarding the Local Government Amendment Bill. The Chamber of Commerce of the Northern Territory has condemned the Northern Territory government for the introduction of the first Local Government Amendment Bill without any consultation whatsoever from stakeholders and interested parties. That is just a couple of letters. I know there is a mountain and the member for Nelson has many more examples. In fact, I have been into his office and there are mountains of letters and documents and the like.
Nobody can tell pastoralists what service fees they will have to pay, or if development moratoriums will be lifted. There is still no answer on that. There is no clear understanding of costs involved, no economic analysis has been provided. I know the issue was raised about the $180 000 CEOs being based in the larger municipal towns of the Northern Territory: Alice Springs, Darwin, Katherine and Tennant Creek, of course, which will be part of the Barkly Shire. We can only hope that the minister stays to his word when he said that he can categorically assure us that they will not be based in these townships, and they will be part of the shire.
The naming of the shires is another thing that is a big concern for those living in Litchfield. We are not just trying to single out Litchfield; it affects the whole of the Northern Territory. It is a great name - Fred Litchfield. Let us hope that there is some consultation there. We can only urge the minister that he will consult with the residents of these proposed shires and they will come up with an agreement.
The time frame for the implementation of the reform process should be extended, we believe, to properly consider the impacts and the design of a sustainable reform plan. I know the minister is convinced that this will create a better Northern Territory, and he will not be swayed on this decision. We can only hope that he is right. We are not totally convinced. We only hope that he is right because he is sticking to his guns on this.
Having said that, Mr Deputy Speaker, we support the motion by the member for Nelson which states that he has no confidence in the Northern Territory government because of the amateurish manner in which it tried to carry out local government reform, and request the government to stop the local government reform process. Stop it now, start again, slow down and involve the community from the beginning, and have a flexible timetable and get it right. It is all about the time frame, as far as the Country Liberal Party is concerned, and the rushed process. We support this motion.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank members for their contribution. The minister raised a number of issues and I thought I would try to put some in context. He said that we need to get out and look at the bigger picture. That is exactly what I have done. I spent some time in the Barkly. There is no doubt that that is an awfully big shire.
I went to Alpurrurulam and you have to really wonder if that needs to be part of the Barkly shire. They go shopping at Mt Isa, they play footy at Mt Isa, and they are miles from Tennant Creek. They are right out on the eastern side of the Northern Territory by themselves, with a few other communities. I gather that some time ago they wanted to set up some sort of regional council including those areas.
This is why I was concerned about the debate. This is why I was concerned about things being set in concrete by the government at the beginning. I am not saying that because I am trying to knock holes in the government all the time, but that is as big as Victoria. Victoria, even though it has amalgamations, probably still has about 100 councils in that area. It is pretty hard to prove that there is any community there. Alpurrurulam is over here; Muckaty is up here, and other places are down here. They are not exactly next door neighbours. You might say well, that is your idea, but I will go back to this paper. It was only printed this year.
Minister, you said we were looking at new ideas, new ways of doing things. Here is this paper: An Analysis of the New Perspective on Amalgamation in Australian Local Government. In here it says:
I did not dream this up. I looked at the work that these people have done in relation to amalgamation throughout Australia over the last umpteen years and they are saying bigger is not better.
I am querying that because I want councils to work. I also want councils to be living communities. I go out to Alpurrurulam and, by geez, you are a long way from anywhere. I came around by Camooweal - I have never been on a rougher road than the road from Camooweal to Urandangi in my life - and then across from that road to Alpurrurulam. Was I praising the Lord when I hit the Northern Territory border! I must admit one thing: our roads are better than on the Queensland side.
Here is this perfectly good council. It has beautiful local government facilities; it has equipment for grading, trucks and all that. It has 1000 people. I could not believe there were 1000 people in that part of the woods. There is a community that, if you amalgamated it with a couple of other local communities, I would have to ask: why could that not be a council? Do we really need councils this big such as Lajamanu to Tobermorey Station? Do we have it right? You say you have, and that is fair enough, but I am saying, that is a debate we should have had. That is something the community should have been involved in from day one.
I am not knocking the process of reform for councils. I never have. I just do not feel that we started off with the right process. Just the size of the councils, it is hard to believe that they are councils that will include communities. They seem to me to be based on population and dollars and, surely, councils are more than just that. They are communities.
In relation to Litchfield Shire, I know the minister is saying that you have to look at the bigger picture. You have to remember that Litchfield Shire is around about 17 000 people. It is a municipality. It has been running for 22 years and government says, ‘you are dissolved’, just like that - no debate, no discussion. There was not even a discussion about whether Litchfield could have expanded its boundaries like Katherine. You are dissolved.
I get passionate, partly because I live in that area, and partly because I worked on that council, and partly because I know that the people who started that council did it with good intentions. They did not want a council which was the same as the others. One thing you have to watch here is we do not say because we have nine shires, they are mirror images. I hope the councils in Arnhem Land are not necessarily the same as councils in the desert. That is not what local government is about.
Litchfield people decided that they wanted a council that was not like Darwin with by-laws coming out your ears and UCV, parking fees and all that sort of stuff. They did not want that. They wanted a simple life in the rural area. They wanted to have a flat rate based on how much it cost to run the council, not how rich and poor they were, not how much land they own, but how much it cost. I am proud that the council put that into place; that came from the grassroots of that area and it has not changed.
Yes, there are a few townies who have gone out there because they are sick of living two inches away from their neighbours in Delfin estates. That is why people live out there and why they continue to live out there. Yes, I appreciate the minister said there are pressures out there. Of course, there are pressures out there. The place is developing fast. I appreciate there is some possible money going towards planning, but do not forget we also have the Litchfield Planning Concepts and Land Use Objectives where people do put in their contribution as well. I am not saying to have some sort of forum is not a bad thing because these things have to vary with time, but this is the Northern Territory government’s Litchfield Land Use Objectives. Much work has gone into it and many people have had input.
It is not as though this council has arrived out of the sky and does not know what it is talking about. It does know what it is talking about. It has been involved in many debates about the development of the rural area. It certainly does not want to become part of Palmerston and Darwin in the form of suburban encroachment. It wants to stay rural. There will be some small blocks, I have no doubt, but as long as they are kept to a minimum and as long as they basically have that rural feel, I do not think that is going to be a problem.
The real crunch is, minister, even though you said you will get extra money from the Commonwealth - and these things are important, I do not have a problem with that - what I have a problem with, and which is the basis of why I think many people object to what has happened, is that you have said this is the model. You have said this will be the rates. You will have said this will be the type of rating structure. You have put your stamp on our council without the community having a say whether they support that. I bet if we have a referendum on whether we want stay as we are, most people in the rural area would say ‘leave us alone’. I have never said that, even though I am tempted nowadays to say that may be the case. I have left that alone because I believe the incorporation of other areas in the greater Darwin area is important. However, the bit missing is: is that the way to go? Do we have two or three shires? No discussion; you will have one shire. It is the community that is left behind. That is why people are angry.
Minister, by setting the rates over three years you made an awful lot of people cranky because it appeared, and I still think it is, a political move. It took away the community’s chance to discuss the rating system from this preliminary business plan because you decided that you will cap the rates and you will set the rating system for the next three years. By that time, the new council will be involved. Guess what they are going to have to pick up? They are going to have to make decision about what the real cost of running the expanded Litchfield Top End Shire will be. This document certainly cannot tell you that. It is too full of holes. I have mentioned the inaccuracies and the assumptions in it. You could not say from that document that you could accurately pick the rates required to run the shire.
When people see that they are worried because this capping of the rates will take us past the next Territory election and then some poor councillors are going to have to come along and make some pretty hard decisions. I was on the council for 13 years and the period of the council I hated the most was when the rates were having to be declared. There was a certain editor of a paper, Mr Jack Ellis, who now, thankfully, lives at Cox Peninsula, who used to write for the Litchfield Times. Every time the rates went up, you would get the biggest print you have ever seen. If it went up by $5, he would still somehow make it 20% or something. He would make it as big as he could, and we used to hate it, but we still made the decisions when they needed to be made. That is what Litchfield Shire Council did when there was that large increase in the rates.
They did not like it, and I can tell you; the staff at Litchfield Shire Council hated it, because they would get clobbered. I know John Maley used to put notices in the paper saying to people, ‘please do not criticise the staff. If you do not like the rates going up, please talk to your local councillors’. Litchfield worked hard to keep the cost of rates down, even though some people would say, compared to what they were when they started, they are relatively high.
The government talks about the bigger picture. I sometimes think you then lose sight of the little picture. People like the basics out our way. They support development. They do not support development from above. The best way to get development in places like Litchfield is to do a couple of things – bituminise the roads, and Litchfield has been very successful at that; and expand the infrastructure, that is your electricity and your water. That is not happening like it used to be. I will give you a case. I lobbied for power for Hayes Creek a couple of years ago. I wrote a letter to the minister: ‘These people are 10 km from the main line. Could Power and Water say: “You can pay off the line over 10 years?”, because they use so much diesel. So, instead of paying for diesel they will pay off the cost of the line?’ But, no, they would not do that.
In other words, there needs to be certain investment from the government to help development, and some of that can be done by Litchfield Shire Council, and I believe it has done that successfully. Some of it is done by Litchfield Shire Council requiring developers to put in some of this infrastructure. For instance, in Litchfield Shire, if you have a development, you must put in power, water, and bitumen roads, and that is happening right through Litchfield. It has not happened in other places like Dundee, and that is one of the areas that a new council would have to look at. It has not happened in places like Douglas Daly, but it has happened in Litchfield, and Litchfield has developed, not necessarily by bringing in the big bucks, but by using local methods of doing things.
Minister, we could probably go on for a long time. We agree that there should be local government reform. I am certainly not against local government reforms throughout the Northern Territory, although you did say to me, if I can provide one example of you being vindictive. Well, I actually do not believe - and I stand corrected - I said that to you, I said ‘the government’. In this case, the Chief Minister was being interviewed on the radio on 4 September by Julia Christensen. She asked: ‘Can you guarantee, though, that rates will not rise as a result of the amalgamation into super shires?’. The Chief Minister said: ‘All I can say is that we need to have a rating system which supports services,’ again, telling us what to do. We have a rating system. When you say: ‘The Litchfield Shire Council, I believe that over the last few years they have a rate increase of something like 60%’ - wrong. ‘Now, that is a very significant rate increase under the current model, and when you look at the services that are provided in Litchfield, I mean, they have not been able to manage a dump’ - wrong! ‘They do not have a library’. Wrong! ‘Some of the basic services, so, mate, they cannot manage to have a pool’ – wrong! ‘We put capital into a pool and they rejected it’ – yes, explain why. ‘I say think about some of the basic services that the people of Litchfield want, and wonder whether the current model of local government has the capacity to deliver’, and she was on. That is having a go at Litchfield Shire, and that is what it has been about.
I have listened to the barbs that have come when we have raised the issue of the tip in this place. I have letters here that can show that I asked government two years before the closure of the tip to do something about it. All I got was a letter saying: ‘We have a bit of concern’, and I got no reply from one of the other ministers. I raised these issues, knowing that they were going to be a problem, but received no response. And what do we have today? We have to take our rubbish to Shoal Bay. The funny thing is, people in Dundee’s rubbish goes to Shoal Bay, would you believe, paid for by the taxpayer through Parks and Wildlife. Amazing! Where are we going with these issues?
I do believe that there are parts of government - I am not saying you, minister - that certainly do not like Litchfield Shire. Even way back, when Litchfield Shire started off, there were people saying …
Ms Lawrie: Big conspiracy.
Mr WOOD: No, I am not saying conspiracy, I just know. There were a certain number of people in the government, not necessarily politicians, who did not like the Litchfield Shire model.
Minister, I thank you for your response to what I have said. I also thank the member for Greatorex for his contribution. We will have to agree to disagree. The basics of what I am about is that we believe the model of council which has been put forward is not necessarily the right model, and that the principles on which that model are being put forward are flawed. That, to me, is dangerous, especially if you are looking to the future. I do not accept that Litchfield Shire Council is not viable into the future. I believe it is a good council, and will continue to be a good council. I believe the statement that it is not viable is simply being used as a lever to promote the argument that we have to be dissolved and join in with all the other councils. That is part of the reason I believe what you are putting forward for Litchfield Shire people at least, and other people in the area, is based on false propositions.
I do not think any one of the 250 people the other night actually said anything against the overall concept of local government reform and that there should not be some reform. However, I think they all believed the process which has been put forward is being enforced by government when it should be a case of asking the people and finding out what they want, and little things such as ‘What kind of rating system would you like?’, not ‘You will have this rating system’. Yes, you have flat rate, minister; you have said it is there for domestic. However, you have now introduced a new scheme of rating which we did not have. I know I will be a cynical person but, once you have introduced that system, lord knows what a future council will decide to introduce. That is why people do not have any faith in the system of change which has been foisted on rural people.
I hope the government will listen. If you stop the system in Litchfield Shire and surrounding areas, you will not affect the rest of the regions. If you believe the rest of the regions are all happy with their shires, that is okay for them and I am not going to deny them that process. Local government will not fall apart if it continues on for another couple of years in its present situation. Coomalie has a council, as does Cox Peninsula, Belyuen has an administrator, and Litchfield is doing perfectly okay, thank you very much.
You could rate the other areas yourself, as happens in East Arm port, if you wanted to. In the meantime, while you are looking at re-jigging local government in this so-called Litchfield Top End Shire, and while you include all the people in the process, you still could be collecting rates, and doing the things which local government would do if it was in place. There is an opportunity to stop and start again; that is what we are asking. It does not mean the entire process has to stop throughout the Territory.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I will say again, the shires are far too big and I am interested to see what happens to them in the future. Be that as it may, there is room for compromise there, minister. You could stop the process in Litchfield Shire and start it off again when the community has its say.
Motion negatived.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move –
That this Assembly:
(a) recognise that the government has a responsibility to ensure purchasers of land or housing have the right to protection through vendor disclosure; and
We have tried for a long time, and we have been promised that something was going to happen. I was nearly getting to the stage where I thought I might give it a fourth try at introducing the Law of Property Amendment Bill but, as other things popped up like local government and a few other issues, I thought maybe we will just put a motion forward and that is what we did today.
I note that the Attorney-General, on 2 May this year, said in relation to the private member’s bill:
He went on to say:
A funny thing that:
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am just putting this forward as a bit of a nudge to the government. It made a promise to introduce legislation at the end of this year. I have always supported the idea that we should get rid of the concept of ‘buyer beware’ when it comes to buying a house. Houses are such an important part of our life. These days, looking at the price of houses and land, which we will not get into, a fairly substantial amount of money is required to buy both. We should ensure that people are fully protected before they make that purchase.
I am hoping, in reply, the minister will be able to give me some news on the future of a bill which may cover the issues I have raised in the motion.
Mr STIRLING (Justice and Attorney-General): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for the brevity of his remarks. He wanted to mark the spot and he has done that. He is aware, as I have previously stated publicly, that vendor disclosure legislation is scheduled to be introduced subject to final government consideration by the end of the year. We still have some sittings day left before the new year is upon us.
We have recognised the importance of vendor disclosure legislation. Our aim in initiating the reform is to make property transactions more efficient and streamlined; minimise potential problems in property transactions such as gazumping; minimise waste on multiple reports being created; and create easy and practical remedies for problems that may arise at a property transaction.
I advise the member for Nelson and the Assembly that a draft bill on vendor disclosure is being developed by the department. I have authorised its release to stakeholders for further and final consultation. It is quite an important step. It is critical when dealing with property and land transaction reform that we have comments on the bill and accompanying regulations from those who are most conversant with the everyday issues in the area.
We will seek the views of legal practitioners, real estate stakeholders and other government agencies. I will ensure that the members for Nelson and Katherine each receive a copy for their consideration as soon as that goes out the door. All of this has to be done between now and November and, short of any major issues being raised and concerns with the drafts, the vendor disclosure legislation will be introduced before the year’s end.
I appreciate the member for Nelson’s enthusiasm in this initiative. He knows, and I know he accepts that it is absolutely critical that we get the legislation right. The best way to do that is to get the comments and views of those stakeholders who will be working with this legislation on a daily basis once it is in place.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for his announcement. It certainly is important that a draft bill goes out to all sections of industry. I understand it is complex. It would be good if it could be done through members of the public. I do not know what groups of people, associations or whatever, are in existence that represent householders in the Northern Territory, but it may be that, at least when we advertise that there is a draft bill, it is put clearly out to the general public that they can also get a copy of this bill.
If you only have it with a certain part of the profession like conveyancers, legal practitioners, and real estate agents, you might have a point of view which is only their view. I am sure we would like to hear the points of view of people who have gone through the experience of buying a house and found that by the next Wet Season the ceiling had fallen through, the septic tank had blocked up and the power only worked through half the house because some of the information they were given was not right. We need to ensure that a wide range of people are able to access this draft bill and be given adequate time to comment on it.
With those words, Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome the announcement by the Attorney-General that we are getting a draft bill. Hopefully, it means I will not have to draw up a bill for the fourth time to make a point. Sometimes I am laughed at; they say that Independents cannot make a difference. I am a great believer in perseverance, and this is probably one of the longer projects on which I have persevered since I have been in parliament. It is important. I thank the government for taking on board the principle, and I will sit down and work my way through the draft bill and will be submitting comments.
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Litchfield Development Consent Authority – Removal of Middle Arm Peninsula
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, we have a motion, and I am asking people to take this seriously. I move -
That this Assembly -
Mr Deputy Speaker, at the outset, Darwin Harbour is one of our greatest assets. It is important culturally for the Larrakia people, as it is their home, and also neighbours like the Wagait people, because my brother-in-law was born at Talc Head and he was a Wagait person. It is also important for Larrakia people for food. It is important economically as a port, tourist attraction, and for fishing and recreation. It is also important for aquaculture. It is important for the environment.
Remember when we were doing the work on opposing the Elizabeth River dam, and we started to work on the number of marine creatures that live in Darwin Harbour? We went to the museum to speak Dr Helen Lawson, and we got the right books to look at. The number of species of fish in the Darwin Harbour is incredible, and many things, whilst they have been discovered, have not yet been named. All sorts of creatures live in this beautiful harbour.
We have two cities built on it, Darwin and Palmerston, and that is surrounded by Litchfield which is part of the catchment of the area. Unfortunately, we sometimes misuse the harbour. If you go around to Larrakeyah, it gets sewage pumped into it. It is also a beautiful place.
The question really is: are we going to retain that beauty? The centre of the harbour was only developed fairly recently. If you take out the issues of the leprosarium, one at Mud Island, which is Wickham Point, and one at Channel Island then, basically, the only development that has occurred there is the powerhouse. That is there because they needed deep water access because originally it was going to be a coal-fired power station. There was some aquaculture development, the Wickham Point gas plant, and that was basically it up until now.
For many years, it was in pristine condition. I remember the ABC doing a show on a squatter who lived out there. I went out to see what he was doing because he was complaining about some changes to the area. It was one of the most beautiful parts of Darwin, from a woodlands point of view, that you would ever see. It was just a beautiful area. I also remember at that time a friend of mine, Mr John O’Sullivan, who used to work at Bathurst Island. He lived in town for a while. He was a bit of a loner, a single bloke. He used to pick up the itinerants around Darwin on a Saturday morning after they had had a bad evening. He would pick them up, put them in a truck - I believe Mr Shane Stone at that time provided him with a truck - to take them out to this part of Darwin Harbour where they looked for crabs and long bums and went fishing, and to get away from the hustle and bustle of the Darwin environment which was not doing them much good.
What happened after that was, the area, which was meant to be a mining reserve, started to be opened up for extractive mining. It was allowed to be scraped under what I believe was a deal between the Mines department and the Planning department. It is not as though we are exactly short of gravel because the whole of Howard Peninsula was zoned extractive mining, but they did a deal because the Planning department thought this would be a great area for industrial. So they said there is not much point keeping all those nice trees so we will allow you to scrape it. Not only CLP minister, because they started off the bit at the front, but Labor ministers then gave permission for Middle Arm Peninsula to be scraped for gravel. Whether it was for Wickham Point, Darwin Harbour, or Bayview Canal, the place was ripped to pieces and the beautiful bush went.
There has been no rehabilitation, because the government says it is going to be industry - why bother? So you have these gravel scrapes, plenty of weeds, the countryside destroyed, the middle of the harbour looks just like a gravel pit if you fly over it. It is certainly not impressive for the middle of your harbour.
If you look through the Litchfield Planning Concepts and Land Use Objectives, the Planning people have decided that the middle of the harbour would be industrial. They make it clear, industrial with certain conditions, and those conditions, which is important in this debate – this is clause 9.1.2, Industrial Development on the Middle Arm Peninsula, and this is from the Northern Territory Planning Scheme, a Labor Party government document. It says:
1. The purpose of this clause is to limit the nature of industrial development on Middle Arm Peninsula ...
(a) the processing of natural gas into liquified natural gas or other liquid for export by sea;
4. The consent authority must not consent to development that is not in accordance with this clause.
That is where we stood. It also had Glyde Point which gets a mention in the Litchfield Land Use Objectives:
It then quotes the issues:
We do wait:
That was the basis of the planning concepts approved by this government.
The government closed down Glyde Point as an option without any public discussion or an environmental impact statement, although I saw some letters going around which said the government had started an environmental impact statement but stopped it - that was a funny thing to do - without looking at alternatives. They said if the Environment Centre NT and AFANT were against it, it was not a good idea. I agree with them. If you get the government’s map of the area you will see that planners, when they tried to plan for Glyde Point, drew what you would call the straight line method of planning which is up there, across all the mangroves, back there and down there, and everything in there is now called development zone. Wonderful sort of planning; I love that sort of plan. To me, that is one of the problems.
Just because the Environment Centre and AFANT said that is not a good idea: ‘You are going to upset the biodiversity of the area and, therefore, do not go ahead with it’, we should have scrapped it. We should have looked at whether there were any alternatives. There are rainforests and mangrove forests there, and also some creeks. We should have said we will look at it again, and see whether we can put discrete development - even if it is heavy industry - amongst the environment. Not use the square system the planners used but the round geographical lines which follow creeks and keep rainforests out, that do not wipe out umpteen kilometres of mangroves. We should have had a chance to look at an alternative, but we did not.
If believe this is a conspiracy – you have all heard of conspiracy. It started a couple of months ago when Dow Chemicals were on the front page of the Northern Territory News. I think the government was under pressure to allow more industry in the middle of the harbour, and to offset any flack from the people, and the Glyde Point excuse was raised. I do not know whether I have that ...
Mr Warren: Be careful.
Mr WOOD: What are you being careful about? What I am saying is that, instead of going up to Glyde Point, the Chief Minister made this statement - and I do not know what I am being careful for as it is written in the Northern Territory News. The Chief Minister said:
In other words, was that the reason, or was it too expensive? That is what I would ask because the minister for Planning started to use the figure of, ‘oh, it is going to cost $400m’, I think you mentioned, minister, somewhere …
Ms Lawrie: Yes.
Mr WOOD: Well, that is a funny thing. That is what you get when you are putting infrastructure into the Northern Territory. What was also ignored when the Chief Minister spoke about that, was that it was conveniently forgotten that 7600 people signed a petition in 2001 which said that Darwin Harbour would be declared a National Marine Conservation Park, with only essential development permitted. There was another petition in 2001 signed by 6332 people which said that no further development occur on Middle Arm Peninsula until a totally independent assessment of the cumulative effects of such development is completed. That has not been done. The other one was that we do not want it developed at all.
Yet, the Chief Minister said: ‘From my discussions over six months, people would rather see further development on Middle Point than go to Glyde Point’. Well, that conflicts with what I have. Those petitions do not say that. The Chief Minister obviously ignored all the people who were not happy with Middle Arm becoming the industrial suburb of the harbour. The government tried to blame the CLP for inheriting Glyde Point. Absolute rubbish! I read that. Yes, I know, minister, you will say, all this.
The reality is, although this document is a relatively older document – 2002 – you had only been in for two years - this document – this one - is entirely yours. This is no one else’s. This is not inherited from the CLP. This one only came out at the beginning of this year and you have been in power for nearly seven years. This one, you had full control over. If you did not like the idea of Glyde Point, you certainly had plenty of chances to take it out of the system.
There was more spin in that media release on 3 October, about Glyde Point being protected. It spoke about the conservation of Leaders Creek. The funny thing is, you pick up this map again and you find Leaders Creek has a whopping big conservation zone over it ...
A member: Not all of it.
Mr WOOD: True, but that is not the impression you get from this particular document, because it says: ‘Glyde Point is adjacent to the conservation areas of Gunn Point …’, and, ‘The Chief Minister and the minister for Environment and Planning announced that Glyde Point will be re-zoned from industrial land to public open space, including a 500 m conservation zone around Leaders Creek’. You actually have put it adjacent to the existing conservation zone. It is not as though Leaders Creek was not getting some help. That did not come out in the media release.
The other difficulty I have is why have you called it ‘public open space’? If it is that important, because do not forget, you spoke about the significant conservation values, why was it not zoned ‘conservation’ …
Ms Lawrie: Recreation.
Mr WOOD: No, it ain’t. So, hang on, motor bikes, quad bikes and who knows what are going to go through an area of significant conservation value. Well, it is a bit of a zone at cross purposes, by what you are saying.
To ensure all this happens, the minister and the Chief Minister have decided to remove a section of the NT Planning Scheme related to Middle Arm development. That is the area 9.1.2 that you are hoping to remove. Here we have a plan that has taken years to develop. Here is a plan that if you wanted to change your piece of land - and I know a person in Berry Springs who would like to change a piece of land who has been told: ‘You have to wait until we look at the total picture again, and then we might look at that’. But the government is going to do it itself very quickly, because it wants gas associated development in the middle of the harbour. So, it is going to take out this clause that says you cannot do that. That is phase one.
That means that if you want to have smelter and you thought you were going to go to Glyde Point, you do not need to do that. You can go right in the middle of the harbour, if it needs gas. If you want a fertilizer factory that needs gas, you can go right in the middle of the harbour. If Dow Chemicals wants gas, it can go right in the middle of the harbour. That is what the change will do and that is why I say, minister, you should not have just said Glyde Point, end of the story.
I believe it needed a lot more community input, public consultation and scientific analysis. Woodside did a lot of work on that area when they thought of bringing their gas in from the Timor Sea. I think they were required to do environmental impact statements. The only people who wanted to wipe out the entire coastline of mangroves there was the Planning department because they put the purple patch over the whole thing. I would not have supported that, either, but that did not mean I would not have at least wanted to have a look at a detailed analysis of the possibility of doing something different. The Chief Minister is now trying to attract, according to the media release, at a secret meeting, INPEX to Darwin ...
Ms Lawrie: Secret meeting? She reported it to parliament. It is hardly secret.
Mr WOOD: I am using the media release on that matter and they reported it as a secret meeting. Surely, you can trust the paper when it comes to these things?
Ms Lawrie: Come on! She reported to parliament.
Mr WOOD: All right. Anyway, that is what it said in the document. I know the Chief Minister has denied the case that she said that there was a more relaxed environmental protection policy. She has said that was untrue, but that what was in the NT News on 24 September this year.
Regardless of that, to ensure the government gets what it wants, it has decided that the independent body, the democratic body that approves development applications in the middle of the harbour is going to go. It has decided to use a section of the Planning Act, section 83(2), which says the minister may, by notice in the Gazette, amend the division area specified in a notice under subsection (1), which the minister has done. She has gazetted. She basically put a note in the Gazette, I think on 19 September, saying no more Development Consent Authority for the middle of the harbour. There was not a media release about that one. Many people read the Gazette. It is one of those popular papers that many people see. It has popped out in the Gazette that we will not have a Development Consent Authority as we know it. Yes, we will have the minister for the Development Consent Authority, but we will not have an independent Development Consent Authority to deal with planning applications in part of Litchfield Shire in the middle of the harbour.
There will be no more independent assessment of planning applications because the minister will have full control. You can write her a letter. The department will put an advertisement in the paper, saying ‘Smelter, Dow Chemicals. What do you think?’ Instead of being able to turn up at a public meeting …
Ms Lawrie: Do not mislead.
Mr WOOD: Instead of being able to turn up at a public meeting where you can put your proposals to a five-person, independent …
Ms Lawrie: Five person.
Mr WOOD: Five-person, independent Development Consent Authority, you will not be able to do that any more. You could turn up at a meeting - could, if the minister wanted to call a meeting. That meeting does not necessarily have to be public ...
Ms Lawrie: I am on the record saying there will be public hearings.
Mrs MILLER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am continuously listening to cross-talking across the Chamber while the member for Nelson is trying to put his argument. The minister for Planning and Infrastructure has plenty of opportunity to put her point forward. She absolutely hates anyone else talking when she is speaking. I ask that she respect the member for Nelson and wait until it is her turn.
Ms LAWRIE: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker. I am only raising concern about misleading the House. I have been quite clear on that. I was talking about misleading, which is a serious thing to do in the Chamber. I am trying to ensure that the member for Nelson is accurate.
Madam SPEAKER: I do not believe that the member for Nelson was actually saying that the minister has misled parliament. I do not think that is what you were saying, was it, member for Nelson?
Mr WOOD: The member is saying that I misled the parliament.
Madam SPEAKER: It will be helpful if there was less conversation across the Chamber. Please continue, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I was saying, the minister will now take control of planning matters. The minister will be the Development Consent Authority. The minister will not be a five-person, independent authority that will make that decision as it does in every other part of Litchfield. The minister will make the decision. She might put out an application in the paper for comment, and I will write a letter. Well, that is nice. It could end up in the bin. If I write a letter to the Development Consent Authority as it is today, I will get a letter saying, ‘You are invited to the normal meeting on such and such a date to put forward your opinion’. The minister can have a meeting, but it is not compulsory. She can call a meeting, but it is not compulsory. We have had a change in that we now have an autocratic system where the minister is the person who makes the decisions. In other words, we have gone backwards. I would have been expecting, and I have argued this before, that the Development Consent Authority should be a mobile Development Consent Authority and go over the whole Territory when it needs to. That means you are including the people in the decision-making process. You are allowing an independent authority to make the decisions. Now we have taken one step backwards.
Here we have the centre of the harbour, with some of the most important developments that will occur in our beautiful harbour. That is why I started off this speech talking about the importance of our harbour. Right smack in the middle, they can argue that it is not. Well, why do you think they call it Middle Arm? Because it is on the left or the right side? It is in the middle. We can argue whether some industry should go there, and I have probably lost that debate. I would rather see housing go there because at least with housing you would get some trees and it would look a lot better in the middle of the harbour.
Obviously, the government is determined that this is where we are going to have industry. There were some restrictions on that up until now, and they are taking those restrictions away. They are removing the clauses in the Northern Territory Planning Scheme deliberately to allow the people they should have had at Glyde Point to now go into the middle of the harbour. Where is a smelter going to go if someone comes here and says, ‘I want to build a smelter and I need gas?’ Where will it go now? Where will a fertiliser factory go if they want to come to the Territory and they need gas? Where will INPEX go if it wants to come to Darwin? Where will Dow Chemicals go if it wants gas? In the middle of the harbour.
This clause was meant to keep the type of industry to a relatively low Winnellie-type industrial base - something I still did not like, not because they can pollute the area so much, but why do you want industrial sheds in the middle of a beautiful harbour for? The harbour is a tourist attraction because of its pristine beauty, except for East Arm Port. We can plant a few trees and do a bit of landscaping around the port. That would be revolutionary for this part of the world; it is not revolutionary in other industrial developments in some parts of Australia. Except for the port and the tank that was never quite that big when I looked at the photographs of Wickham Point, at least our harbour is still in pretty good nick. If you go to the other side of the port you look out to Blayden Point, which is going to be industrial. Have a look on the map. Blayden Point comes right up to the sea. That is where we used to burn the Vietnamese boats. That will be industrial, adding more industry to our harbour.
We had a choice, I think, and we have missed it. We had a choice to keep the harbour pretty well pristine. I have always supported development on the harbour that needs attachment to the sea. I supported Wickham Point. I am not happy with that great big tank, but I did not think it was going to be that big, but it needed attachment to West Arm because of its deep water. Other development does not need to go into that harbour. It can be offset from the harbour. That is why I argued the other day about using Berrimah Farm - you just pick up on that. Don’t go to say: ‘Oh gee, silly old bloke. He is always knocking things’. Look at the map. There is a wedge that goes straight to the Darwin Port from Berrimah Farm. There is an ideal opportunity to put some of your development there, in line with the airport. That is the normal place to put a lot of industrial development.
You are just getting good ideas at the moment and saying: ‘There is a space. Put some houses there. That will shut the opposition up who have been whingeing about the lack of land releases’. That is not the way you do planning. Here is a site which is already industrial. We have a major power line going through there, by the way. It has a prison on one side, and it heads straight into the Port of Darwin, and we are going to just put houses there, yet we are happy as Larry to put whatever we want in the middle of the harbour. I would rather you swapped. Put the housing you want on Berrimah Farm in the middle of the harbour. People might have a few sandflies, but at least they have a nice place to live. They do not have the approaches to Darwin Airport over their heads.
This whole thing about closing off Glyde Point is a bit of a con. You are basically saying: ‘We have had some industries ring us up and say they would love to come to Darwin, but Glyde Point is a long way away, can we help them?’ ‘Well, we are looking at Glyde Point. Hang on, yes, it is a pretty expensive area to go to; you would have to $400m worth of infrastructure’. I know that the Litchfield Land Use Objectives do have these great maps in them and one is on infrastructure. There are lots of red lines going to Glyde Point. In fact, we have actually purchased some of the corridors already –amazing! They are going to be great corridors going nowhere. The gas pipeline goes round here down Townend Road, which takes 100 m off that road. We have done the Goode Road one, and I think we have been working with Laurence Ah Toy to take some land off him. Now, the infrastructure goes nowhere. We have a town in Murrumujuk. What happened to that? Not going to build that town? It has been on the plans for a long time. You could pay for half the infrastructure by selling the land off at Murrumujuk - no problem at all.
I believe big business has come to town and said: ‘We want to be close to the port; we do not want to be way up there’. So the minister said: ‘Let us have a look at Glyde Point. No, no, no, the Environment Centre said it is no good; AFANT said it is no good’. They did not come and ask me but I would have said it is no good under that present planning zone they have there. We did not even bother to have a look to see whether we could actually work out some way of mixing the environment and the development. We have just said no. I have not seen an environmental impact statement. I would have loved to have seen an environmental impact statement so we could have debated this a bit more fully.
However, we have said no. Why have we said no? Because the government has made up its mind that we need to attract these big companies such as Dow Chemicals and INPEX. Let us get rid of any sort of impediments, let us get rid of 9.1.2 of the Northern Territory Planning Scheme - that has fixed that. Let us make sure those pesky people on the Litchfield Development Consent Authority do not upset our plans. Let us pull them out of the way.
What annoys me, minister, is that the CLP once tried to do this in Litchfield Shire - remove the top part of Gunn Point from the Development Consent Authority. All hell broke loose. I can bet my bottom dollar that the Labor Party, at that time, would have been complaining bitterly about the lack of process. You have done the same thing. You have taken a right away from the people. You have reduced the power of people to have a say in it through an independent authority. You have taken a backward step - and a deliberate backward step that people in the Darwin area need to know about; that a Development Consent Authority which would have made independent assessments of industry - now heavy industry because you has just taken that clause out - is not going to have the same sort of say as they normally would have had. You are now being entrusted with the power to make those decisions. Unfortunately, to me, for a Labor Party which talks about open and transparent government to do that is just a total shame.
The government has to rethink this because this is just the wrong way for the government to operate.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, your time has expired.
Ms LAWRIE (Planning and Lands): Madam Speaker, on behalf of the government I reject the motion by the member for Nelson. The motion relates to the recent announcement by government to locate industry at Middle Arm and not Glyde Point.
This government is very proud of that decision. We believe that decision advances our economic future and also protects some of our most pristine environments. Glyde Point is considered by many to be a special place worth conserving. It has a pristine environment loved by Territory nature lovers and fishermen alike. The Environment Centre of the Northern Territory and the Australian Marine Conservation Society facilitated a compelling report titled Rainforest to Reef on the Glyde Point region. The report outlined the compelling case for conservation of this region. Of the 833 flora species found in the Glyde Point area, 32 are listed as being of conservation concern. Sixteen are listed under the Northern Territory legislation as endangered, vulnerable or near threatened. Of the nine species of concern found in the rainforest at Glyde Point, two are listed species only found in rainforests within this area. The area is home to more than 60 fauna species of conservation concern, including five endangered species, 10 vulnerable species, two near threatened species and 15 migratory species. Forty species of migratory birds use the habitat along the proposed service corridor, and 30 migratory species intermittently use the Glyde Point site.
There is a significant portion of the world’s remaining dugong population found in northern Australian waters, including around Glyde Point. Internationally, its status is vulnerable to extinction, but in the NT it is listed as threatened.
Our decision to preserve Glyde Point has been welcomed by groups such as the Environment Centre, the Australian Marine Conservation Society, and the Amateur Fishermen’s Association of the Northern Territory. Just as importantly, we believe, it has been welcomed by the community at large; almost everyone other than the CLP and the member for Nelson.
As well as protecting Glyde Point, this announcement was about helping to set up the economic future of the Territory. While under the Martin government the economy is currently booming, we cannot be complacent. This decision is a core part of our plans to grow a robust and sustainable economy. The ConocoPhillips plant created hundreds of jobs, and the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on construction of that project flowed through to all sectors of our community. The benefits continue with the long-term full-time jobs at the plant. This decision by government opens the door to this economic opportunity being repeated.
The area we have zoned for development in Middle Arm is around 12 000 ha; about the size of Darwin’s northern suburbs. That is considered enough land for more than 20 years of development. The area already has gas-based development, and it made sense to keep it at the same place. Middle Arm is close to the port and the railway, and also to Palmerston and Darwin, which is very important to the business community, and to potential investors.
There is some history to Middle Arm which is relevant to this debate. The former CLP government had always identified the whole of the Middle Arm Peninsula for industrial development ...
Mr Wood: You could have turned that over. You could have changed it.
Ms LAWRIE: The member for Blain says no. I will show him the Darwin Regional Structure Plan of 1984. I will point out to the Assembly, Middle Arm. I will point out the area of Middle Arm shaded purple which is industrial. You may shake your head no, but the facts speak for themselves, member for Blain. The Darwin Regional Structure Plan in 1984 identified the majority of Middle Arm as industrial. This plan also introduced the concept of damming the Elizabeth River to create a recreation lake which would have also flooded Mitchell Creek in the process. The CLP’s planning concepts for Cox Peninsula also introduced proposals to dam Woods Inlet, and two of the upper reaches of West Arm.
The Darwin Regional Land Use Structure Plan of 1990 continued to identify Middle Arm as industrial. The member for Blain asked what this has to do with it. It has a lot to do with it. The member for Nelson has tried to run the argument in debate in this Assembly tonight that this is new; that industrial zoning for Middle Arm is new. I am showing here, 1984, the majority of Middle Arm was zoned industrial which is why it is relevant to this debate, member for Blain. You can shake your head no, but the facts speak for themselves. The CLP bury their heads in the sand when it comes to reality.
The Darwin Regional Land Use Structure Plan in 1990 continued to identify Middle Arm as industrial. The Litchfield Area Plan of 1992 zoned Middle Arm for future use which identified that the land would be required for future development and, again, the map speaks for itself. It is earmarked for industry.
The peninsula was rezoned in 2003 by the Martin Labor government, referred to by the member for Nelson in his Litchfield Land Use. This was rezoned from Future Use to Development and, at the same time, 95% of the mangroves of Darwin Harbour were also rezoned to Conservation.
This map shows the industrial zoned area of Middle Arm, a dramatically different zoning from under the CLP government. The CLP government had not protected, with a Conservation zone, the entire buffer of Middle Arm connecting to the harbour. There is a big difference between the two maps, and I am happy …
Mr Warren: Shame.
Mr Mills: Think about what you are saying, member for Goyder.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Warren: It is my electorate and I am concerned about it.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Warren: I am disappointed that you and your government did not do anything to protect it.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Goyder!
Mr Mills: I was never in government!
Mr Warren: This government has done a lot to protect it.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Mills: I was never in government!
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Goyder! Please continue, minister.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, why is the zoning in 2003 relevant and why is the Conservation zone around the Industrial zone within Middle Arm relevant? It is extremely relevant. The member for Nelson likes to use the term: ‘We will have industry in the middle of the harbour’. That is an incredibly misleading term. We have an Industrial zone land locked within Middle Arm. That is a very different thing from what you are trying to peddle, member for Nelson, which is ‘industry in the middle of the harbour’. That evokes industry carte blanche, according to this 1984 map. There are very different Industrial zones between the two, very big …
Mr Wood interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: A significant area of Middle Arm is now zoned Conservation ...
Mr Wood: Yes, you could not build on it.
Ms LAWRIE: We have 1200 – the member for Nelson says: ‘You could not build on it’. That is wrong. It is patently wrong …
Mr Wood: Industry.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: We have 1200 ha of land zoned and available for industrial development. The Conservation zone incorporates the mangroves and provides a significant buffer around the Industrial zoned land. The development of oil and gas-related industry within Middle Arm was initiated by the ConocoPhillips facility at Wickham Point. Middle Arm has been identified as a backup to East Arm and provides land for industrial development, and it has through the decades. This is not just a recent phenomenon; it has through the decades.
It makes sense to continue the future development of more industries at Middle Arm because of its proximity to major infrastructure such as the railway and East Arm Wharf. Member for Nelson, government has to deal with the reality of the location of our infrastructure, our port, our wharf, our railway and roads. That is the reality of economic development. Government intends to maintain control over the direction of development at Middle Arm because of its strategic importance to the Territory …
Mr Wood: Now we know - strategic importance.
Ms LAWRIE: … and for this reason, yes, I will be the consent authority for development proposals ...
Mr Wood: It is not good enough for the public.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, if the member for Nelson wants to constantly interject, it means that other members of the Chamber are unable to hear me.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, please cease interjecting.
Mr Wood: I am sorry, Madam Speaker.
Ms LAWRIE: The conventional development assessment process is applied as it is for the other divisions of the Development Consent Authority. All development applications will still go on public exhibition and the public will have their opportunity to comment. I am on the record as saying there will be public hearings. The member for Nelson has very dangerously tried to mislead the public on that. I am in the Chamber on the record. I am the Development Consent Authority for the area and I am saying there will be public hearings. I am not going to be putting letters from the public in the bin, as you asserted. I find that abhorrent.
There will also be a separate assessment process under the Environment Assessment Act, which, again, is an open and transparent process which provides opportunities for the community to comment on new development proposals. We have two tiers here.
This is the same process that currently applies in the East Arm Industrial Area. In 1998, it was the former CLP government that made the minister the consent authority for all development applications at East Arm following the introduction of the East Arm Control Plan. This was in recognition of the strategic importance of the industrial development of this area. The planning processes we have put in place are appropriate. They are standard in strategic development zones, and they are in place in similar zones around Australia and here in the Territory. The member for Nelson talked about these processes as though it is the first time they have been contemplated in the western world. He claimed that the government is treating the community as fools. He is the one treating them as fools as he tries to pretend that this is something new and something revolutionary.
This government is proud of our record to protect the harbour. It was this government that introduced mangrove protection, the Darwin Harbour Management Plan, and established the Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee. The EPA will have an extensive role in the development of Middle Arm to ensure our harbour is protected. Each development will be different in its nature, and will undergo environmental assessment. The environmental assessment will be done by the environment agency investigating and determining appropriate environmental conditions and safeguards. That will all apply. The member for Nelson likes to lead us all to believe that those environmental processes will not be applied ...
Mr Wood: No, he did not. The independent authority is …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: As the Environment minister, I have also ordered a strategic environmental assessment in relation to gas-based industry at Middle Arm under the Environmental Assessment Act; that is, this strategic environmental assessment will provide a high level approach to environmental concerns which would need to be taken into account in any proposed development. Further, environmental safeguards, member for Nelson: you have called for it; I have already sought it. Not only does such an assessment ensure the protection ...
Mr Wood: This is your excuse for getting rid of the DCA.
Ms LAWRIE: No, it is not an excuse. It is good governance.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: Not only does such an assessment ensure the protection of the harbour, it also provides potential investors with a very clear understanding of the sort of environmental conditions they are going to have to meet in order to get any development considered for approval.
The CLP, in response to our announcement, was both incompetent and embarrassing, and really only served to highlight just how out of touch they are. The Leader of the Opposition said in a media release: ‘The Martin government has chosen planning processes reminiscent of the age of Queen Victoria’. Perhaps she should have said that they were reminiscent of the Stone Age, as it was Shane Stone who brought in very similar planning processes.
As I mentioned, the planning processes we are putting in place at Middle Arm are no different to those in place at East Arm Port ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, the reality is that these planning processes exist throughout Australia at strategic industrial zones. The fact that the CLP believes that they are from the age of Queen Victoria just shows how out of touch they truly are. They are certainly not ready to govern.
We know that the CLP does not get out and talk to business, but I encourage them to get out and try to convince business of their policy against development at Middle Arm. As I mentioned, the previous CLP government set up Middle Arm as a future development zone for industry. It is the Martin government which brought it to fruition ...
Mr Wood: It is my motion, not the CLP’s.
Mrs Miller: That is right.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, the member for Nelson has clearly formed a coalition with the CLP. The Whip has been checking to ensure that he is talking to get a chance to go out and get a coffee ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, the CLP set up Middle Arm as a future development zone for industry; it was the Martin government which brought it to fruition. The current leader of the CLP has decided to wipe away this history and pretend that this was just decided last week.
The environmental assessment processes of this government will play an important arm of any proposed developments at Middle Arm. In stark contrast to the CLP, this government is introducing an Environmental Protection Authority through legislation being passed in the Chamber tomorrow. The CLP argued at the election that it would not have one. You need to bear this in mind when they talk about their concerns for Middle Arm.
In today’s motion, the member for Nelson talked about democratic principles and concerned citizens. Yet, in the last sittings of parliament, he voted against any member of the community getting a say on nuclear facilities. We presented a motion saying that Territorians should get a say on any proposed nuclear facility - something that everyone else in Australia had been offered aside from Territorians. The member for Nelson voted against that. Where is the democratic principle there?
Mr Wood interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Ms LAWRIE: The concerned citizens he referred to in his motion get absolutely no say on a nuclear facility according to the member for Nelson.
While we are talking about nuclear power, it is worth asking where is the CLP’s planned paper on uranium enrichment? Apparently, 200 people made submissions and they have heard nothing. Dave Tollner says that the Leader of the Opposition is putting the paper together. Where is it? Where will her uranium enrichment occur?
Mr Wood interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Nelson!
Ms LAWRIE: In closing, the announcement made by the government sets up our economic future and protects our pristine environment. The planning processes we have put in place are appropriate and they are standard for industrial development zones. We reject the motion and we support the idea of sustainable economic development in the Territory.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I support the motion and wholeheartedly reject the argument that has just been presented by the minister. You gave a selective reading of 27 years of a CLP government. You can pick what you want from that to craft a position to sustain and justify a position you have taken, which I declare to be wrong and ill-considered. You are going to be opposed for what you are proposing. When the community get a grasp of what you have decided to do, they will come out against you. It is dead wrong.
This is in the electorate of the member for Goyder, sitting over the back there. I have to admit that I have been out to Middle Arm without your permission.
I will pay credit to the member for Nelson. Before he was in parliament, he took a position that the CLP - at that time I was not a member, but a fellow traveller. I knew the position that they had taken with regards to the damming of Elizabeth River. I listened to that and I took a position that was similar to the member for Nelson. Ultimately, the CLP government took a different position in response to what the community was saying. They did not want the harbour dammed, and credit to the member for Nelson for playing a leading role in that community action which resulted in a CLP government listening to people and taking a new position.
You can take any time in the history of the CLP and pick a spot that justifies a position that you are trying to take today. I will not be a part of that. As a member of parliament, I have been to the community meetings listening to the proposals regarding the development in Middle Arm as it is currently presented. I did not agree with that and I spoke publicly about that at the time, and I continue to hold the same view. It may be inconvenient, minister, to consider that there can be varying positions taken by members of a party that is not the Labor Party, but we are not a monolith. We change and move as we progress and grow. We are able to think for ourselves and form new positions. It may be comfortable for you to pick out a spot in history and say: ‘Well, the CLP did this, therefore, it is all right for us’. That is absolute nonsense and it is dishonest to the extreme!
This business needs to be attended to properly. The people will not wear it. There is a small opposition and you seem to enjoy that. You can belt them up in the corner, and you spin arguments which are offensive to the member for Nelson, and all 19 of you sitting over there thoroughly enjoy it. You seem to think you can do what you like, but that day is going to come to an end.
I found it very difficult to understand all the little arguments and props to your argument which were running. It started with special birds that are living at Glyde Point. You set that scene, that all those lovely, exotic and unusual things are happening over there and, of course, there is no wildlife or anything over there. I would like to see the study over there. I guess if the argument changed you would find some weird bird over there, but that does not suit your case. You have that assessment done over there; this is the way we manage these sorts of activities. I have been around long enough to see how governments manipulate arguments to suit their own purposes. You have zoned it as Public Open Space. I thought by the strength of your argument it was going to be exclusive Conservation zone but no, that is just a convenient argument to run to suit the argument.
You mentioned Dow Chemicals as sitting behind there. The Chief Minister has had suggestions of wonderful things which may possibly occur, and we have to find the path of least resistance. What is the easiest thing we could possibly do as a government to encourage industry into the Northern Territory? When you are dealing with multinationals, they will play hardball and I do not think you guys are half a match for them. They will find the path of least resistance, the path which will lead to the greatest bottom line for their own interests, as we have found already. They are going to find the door open; come on in, come on in, and in they come to the middle of the harbour.
I opposed the second stage of the development over there. I was uncomfortable with the original development. I had the same position as the member for Nelson, and that was a public position taken at public meetings which no member of government, when they were new to government, attended. Most people did not realise that was the development that was going to occur.
I, like the member for Nelson, was very much surprised to find the size of that tank. In fact, as a new member - I was not in government but I was member of the backbench sitting over there where the member for Brennan now sits - and I was led to believe, as many were, probably the member for Karama also, that you would not really be able to see the tanks. That was how it was presented; I saw the graphics and what was presented and what now appears on our profile in the harbour is not like I thought it was going to be, let alone going to the next stage, and the stage after that, and setting the whole place up for development.
As I said, multinationals are going to look for the path of least resistance. Last week, I had the opportunity in Perth to seek a briefing from a multinational company which has a significant interest in development in the Northern Territory. In times past they have had extensive exploration at Glyde Point as the, then, preferred place for development. Because it was a government policy they looked there. They could see the potential there, and there are ways of working out the development of an area for downstream production of gas.
They looked at that, and they also told me that now the door is open over in the middle of the harbour. Well, with all due respect, that is certainly where we are going to go. Do you think they have chosen to go from there over to here because of dugongs or something? No, because it is going to be a lot easier for them. Their bottom line will be improved, and the opportunities for them will increase ...
Mr Stirling: That is a bad thing, is it?
Mr MILLS: Sorry?
Mr Stirling: That is a bad thing? Yes, okay.
Mr MILLS: I could not understand the Deputy Chief Minister’s mumblings. The issue here is right at the bottom of this, they are going to find the opportunity which is most conducive to development; the easiest path to take. With all the clever little arguments and the colourful maps which have been presented, and the smorgasbord history lesson which has been concocted to craft a position that is suitable to justify the current position taken, I find it offensive, and I believe it is wrong.
The middle of the harbour is not the place for major development. I can only imagine if the Labor Party was in opposition where it would be now. I find it astonishing to consider the positions that were once taken by members of the Labor Party on environmental and development issues when they were in opposition. Now it is an extraordinary position they have taken with the strangest argument. It is like something from the 1960s, one of those weird hallucinogenic arguments where you do not know what is real because there is a strange mass. In 1984, for goodness sake, I was not in the Northern Territory, yet I am responsible for the 1984 position. Rubbish!
I will give my support to the member for Nelson on this matter, and that is complete support. This is the right position to take and I will resist the position that is taken by government.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thought I would read something and see whether the government recognises where it came from:
That was taken from the Northern Territory ALP policy platform, 2005 election. If that is the platform, minister, you are not following it. You are not supporting the consent authorities. There has been much discussion about whether industry should go to the middle of the harbour, whether industry should go to Glyde Point, which is an important debate which will go on a lot longer. I still say that the government is short-sighted in wiping out the possibility of using Glyde Point.
I certainly would not want all these particular creatures at risk, but you should take one note, minister. You mentioned dugongs. There are dugongs in Darwin Harbour. When Wickham Point was being developed, there was an environmental impact statement to ensure that the dugongs were not going to be harmed. That is what I would expect government to do at Glyde Point.
That is why I am saying you should not have wiped Glyde Point off the map as a possible future area for heavy industry ...
Mr Stirling: You could put up signs under water saying: ‘Dugongs do not enter’.
Mr WOOD: As simple as that might sound, minister, you can find out where dugong live. You do know where they feed, and you can develop accordingly. That is what science is about and that is when you should use it.
The issue is about this government’s denying the people in the Territory having an independent Development Consent Authority to make those decisions.
The minister started saying I would not support the motion against the Muckaty radioactive waste facility. That was a purely political statement by a government that does not support Lucas Heights. If we had a planning authority, let the planning authority have a look at the site, have a public meeting and let that Development Consent Authority have a look at it. We do not have a Development Consent Authority there. It would be a normal development. The issue for you about a radioactive waste facility is political. It is not about democracy.
Yes, yes, yes. Your motion was about getting at the federal government and knocking Lucas Heights. That is what it was about. If there was a normal planning scheme, I would expect a Development Consent Authority to look at that issue, to bring up the environmental impact statement, which the Commonwealth has to do anyway, and allow people to go to public meetings. That is where the public would have its input. That is where you would have an independent Development Consent Authority assess the development. That is what I am saying you should do for the middle of the harbour.
We have an independent Development Consent Authority now that looks after the middle of the harbour. Do you think it does not have enough brains to look at strategic development? Are you telling Mr Peter McQueen that his group for the Litchfield area does not have enough brains to be able to make decisions independently of you? You are saying it is of such a strategic nature that they cannot do that and, therefore, you will take them away and you will be the king pin; you will make the decisions.
It is in Litchfield Shire. You are even taking away two members of the Litchfield Shire. It is their shire and you are taking those two people’s rights way to have direct input in the decision-making process in their shire. You are going backwards. You are taking away that particular right which we have had for, I do not know how many years since the Development Consent Authority, or the Planning Authority was there.
By having a planning authority, or by having a Development Consent Authority, we are opening up development; we are opening up the process for the community to take part in what happens. What you have done is said: ‘Oh, no, they might muck up. They might go against something that we need. We might have this company over here saying: “We have a trillion dollar development and we need to do it now!” We cannot have a group of miserable peasants here, five of them, that might actually upset the process. We will get them out of the way and we will do it ourselves. Don’t you worry, we will pass it through parliament next week, and she’ll be right. We will get rid of all these stupid little limitations here in 9.1.2. No more of this, we are not having this any more. We will take that clause out, the one that says - oops, that’s it, it’s gone, that has fixed it. Development Consent Authority – oh, in the NT party platform – no, that cannot mean that, we will get rid of that too. And now, everything is cosy, people will come in’.
Yes, they can have environmental impact statements and do all that, but there will not be the independent body that will assess it. There will be the government which, on one hand, supports these companies coming in, and on the other hand, is not willing to let an independent body make a decision on it.
You are now in a conflict of interest with your government’s own policy. You are the Minister for Planning and Lands, and the Environment, and you are part of a government that supports this big industry coming in, etcetera. The Development Consent Authority at least allows a hands-off approach by the government. It allows your appointed group of people to make a decision on behalf of the people in the Northern Territory. It has taken that away. That is what this issue is about. It is the issue that I remember the CLP government, Mr Hatton, tried to do with Gunn Point in relation to, and it is the same type of thing …
Ms Lawrie: No, it is not.
Mr WOOD: It is. It is in relation to Murrumujuk township; the township the CLP government at that time wanted to be placed approximately 5 m off the cliffs. Litchfield Shire Council at that time had three members on the Planning Authority, so they had the numbers to defeat any proposal the government wanted to put forward. I think they knocked it back two or three times. They said no development that close to the cliffs. So what did Mr Hatton do at the time? ‘Can’t have that, can’t have that independent authority mucking up our great plans. We will scrap that area from the Development Consent Authority. I will be the fella’. And that is exactly what you are doing. You are taking away the same rights. I believe that is a disgrace, by a government that believes in open and transparent governance.
I support strategic development. I support industry – in the right place ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, that is a straight out lie. That is not right. I did not vote against it.
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask for that to be withdrawn. The record speaks for itself.
Mr WOOD: You made the statement, you prove it.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, I ask you to withdraw.
Mr WOOD: I withdraw that, but it is not right, and you know it.
Members interjecting.
Dr Burns: The member for Monsanto!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: At least with Monsanto, your government approved their trials in Katherine, and they produced a document to say what they did. Open - and your government approved it. So don’t go throwing around Monsanto. What a load of rubbish. What simplistic minds do you have over there?
I support development, but development in the right place. I support land clearing, but the right sort of land clearing. It is the quality of the land clearing not the quantity of land clearing. It is where you put your industry that is important, not just have industry anywhere. You people are silly enough to say: ‘Here is a piece of land at Berrimah, let us put housing there’. You forget the prison, you forget a big power line that goes through there, you forget the airport …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Nelson, would you please direct your comments to the Chair.
Honourable members, I remind you of the no interruptions Standing Order No 51, which is my favourite:
There have been a large number of interruptions. I would appreciate a fair bit of calmness. It is getting quite late. Member for Nelson, direct your comment through the Chair; you have a few minutes to go.
Mr WOOD: Well, there you are. It is our General Business Day, thank you very much. We only get one every 12 days.
Madam Speaker, they want to put houses on Berrimah Farm. The funny thing is, the minister will be the one who approves it. Oh, no worries - no DCA there. It is in the East Arm development port area. You are the minister for that area. So, go ahead. You make the decision; you put it in the approaches to the airport, near the prison, near the big power lines, near Hidden Valley, and near industry. Great decision!
However, there is an opportunity, if you have a look, to put some industry to the harbour, not in the middle – there. You have the power, the water, the transport, and you are close to the port. You do not have to take industry through the outskirts of Palmerston to get there. What will happen when you start transporting materials through the edge of Palmerston? You do not have to do that if you develop at Berrimah. You would not have to do that even if you developed in the Howard Peninsula. Every time I put forward those sorts of proposal, we get the simplistic argument: ‘You are against development’.
All I am saying is that you can have development and you can do it properly. You have said: ‘Oh, it is too hard at Glyde Point. Oh, it is too expensive. Oh, there are too many environmental issues. Oh, we have people who want to come to the middle of the harbour. Let us change the rules. Let us change it’. You have just taken a clause out of the Middle Arm Peninsula section of the Northern Territory Planning Scheme. ‘Let us change the rules again. We are not going to allow our Development Consent Authority, an independent consent authority, to make decisions about this. We will do it and we will not be interfered with’. That is what you are going to do.
Minister, I did not say you l would not have a public meeting. I am saying …
Ms Lawrie: Yes, you did, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: No, I am saying …
Ms Lawrie: Come on, you said it. You said you sent me a letter and I put it in the bin. That is what you said.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: Minister, you might say it but, in relation to the way the act is written, you have that choice. It is not required …
Ms Lawrie: I said it in parliament.
Mr WOOD: Yes, you are saying that you will have it, but I am saying - and that is my argument - that it is not a requirement for the minister to have a meeting; that is an option. That is what you have taken away by doing this. They can jump up and down all they like; they can blame CLP all they like. The reality is this motion is not so much about the environment, about industrial development - and that is all important - it is about the government reducing, taking away the rights of the people to have an independent authority to assess development applications in the Litchfield Shire. That is simply what it is about.
That, to me, is a backward step. By doing what they are doing, not only they are taking away those rights, they are telling the existing members of the planning authority: ‘We have no faith in you to do a proper job. Leave it to me. It is too important for you. You have no brains to work this out. We do not want you to handle this; this is top stuff. Top secret stuff this is - way up there’.
It is insulting to the members of the Development Consent Authority to take that power from them. They are a good Development Consent Authority. They look at serious issues. They look at the development of the Darwin city, and there are some big developments in Darwin city. Why could they not look at developments in an industrial site? It is not just about industry in the middle of the harbour, it is aquaculture. Is that such a strategic industry that it needs the minister to approve it? There are aquaculture farms there. What are we dealing with?
It is a sad day, not only for Territorians. I did not think I would see this from the Labor government; that they would actually do something like this. I was cranky at the CLP when they did this and I thought that this is the sort of thing that the ALP would back me on, to go crook at the CLP when they did it. Now, a few years down the track, you are doing exactly the same, and that is a terrible thing.
Madam Speaker, I hope that members in this House will look at what I am saying and say: ‘This is not the way we should be going’. I ask members to support this motion.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Division, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Division?
Mr WOOD: Division, yes.
Madam SPEAKER: Is it supported?
Mr MILLS: Yes.
The Assembly divided:
Motion negatived.
ELECTORAL AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 76)
Continued from 29 November 2006.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, on behalf of, and at the request of, the member for Braitling, I move that debate on the Electoral Amendment Bill 2006 (Serial 76) be postponed until the next General Business Day.
Motion agreed to.
Continued from 2 May 2007.
Mr STIRLING (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I am intrigued that the couple of times I have been on my feet today on legal questions as Attorney-General, one in relation to the Bob Collins matter came to me as Attorney-General. Normally when matters come to you in your portfolio, it is the shadow spokesperson who is running with the issue. The Bob Collins matter was raised not by the shadow Attorney-General to the Attorney-General, but by the member for Blain. We had the births, deaths and marriages issue, a legal question in its essence, not proposed by the shadow Attorney-General, but by the member for Blain. Now we have the Aboriginal Land (Inter-Tidal Waters) Bill proposed not by the shadow Attorney-General for the Attorney-General to respond, but by the member for Blain.
One wonders just who is the shadow Attorney-General on the opposite of the Chamber, given that either they have changed jobs or there is a hell of a push for the member for Blain to get his hands on the role of shadow Attorney-General.
I would like to know the reason. Undoubtedly, if a minister in the government was speaking for someone or taking over someone else’s role, the opposition would be hell-bent to find out what was happening and why that was the case. Equally, I am interested as to why the shadow Attorney-General has been silent on three questions of a legal nature coming to me as Attorney-General today.
I would like to inform the House that a date has been announced for the High Court to hear the Blue Mud Bay appeal. It will be heard on 4 December this year. I would like very much to be in the High Court on that day to hear the arguments put. Of course, I would be leaving the legal arguments to counsel, although it is not uncommon at all for Attorneys-General in the Australian legal system to run those arguments in the High Court, but just watching would be interesting and challenging enough. I want the Northern Territory government to put its best case forward, and that would be the Solicitor-General and others of a very high calibre who are best placed to lead the arguments.
Our position in the matter has been consistent and clear. We are appealing to the High Court because we consider the Full Federal Court’s decision to be flawed and unworkable over the longer term. We did not agree with the Federal Court’s decision, notwithstanding that the member for Blain and members opposite have claimed from time to time, and still do, that this government supported the decision in the first place.
All parties to this recognised that the matter would, ultimately, go to the High Court no matter which argument was successful in the Full Federal Court because it is only the High Court of this country that can establish once and for all the certainty and the final legal clarity that everyone needs regarding the application of Northern Territory laws, such as the Fisheries Act, over the entire Territory. I can assure Territorians that the Territory government will prosecute its case very strongly indeed.
I also point out that the Territory government’s efforts in the interim period have always been focused on ensuring an absolute minimal disruption and inconvenience to recreational fishers and, at the same time, keeping the commercial industry strong and on a sound footing. Officers from the Justice department, Fisheries, the Chief Minister’s Department and police have worked together with the Seafood Council, AFANT, tour operators and land councils to get through this period as smoothly as possible. In the meantime, government has been working hard doing the work necessary to launch a strong High Court challenge.
That constructive and mature approach undertaken by this government stands in stark contrast to some individuals who have preferred to stamp their feet, declare interim licences offensive, and that, because they do not understand the issues, they will not comply with the Federal Court interpretation of a Commonwealth law.
I refer to the member for Blain in an interview with Julia Christensen on ABC radio on 1 August 2007. Julia Christensen said:
One wondered where he had been for some time, but on this day, on 1 August, he surfaced.
It goes further into the interview:
The reporter eventually said:
That is untrue. The Territory government did not support the decision. That is why we have gone to the Federal Court. We do not support the permit system. There was a time when AFANT wanted a permit system for recreational fishermen, and urged this government to put in place a permit system. We refused. We do not believe that we ought to have a permit system. It was a law of the Commonwealth, and an interpretation of the act by the full Federal Court, which made this ruling such. It is incumbent on every member of this Assembly to not only respect and obey the laws of the Northern Territory, but the Commonwealth of Australia. It is in your pledge in becoming a member of this Assembly that you will do so, and not encourage people to break the law, not stand there publicly and say that you are going to break the law because (1) you find it offensive, and (2) you do not understand it and you are not going to get a permit.
He does not understand it. He understands enough to bring a bill in here. He brings a bill in here on this issue, expecting us to support him, when he says he does not understand what it is all about. He said: ‘I do not understand it, I find it offensive’, and suddenly he sees the horizon, the fog lifts, he now understands it, and he understands it enough to bring in a bill.
He does not understand the decision. He finds it offensive. He will not accept it as if Federal Court decisions and Commonwealth laws have no effect on him. He is above the law, the member for Blain, he does not have to respect the law by the full Federal Court. We will not like it, none of us like it, but it is the law of the country.
I tell you what, I do not like Brough’s ridiculous alcohol laws that he has inflicted on this Northern Territory either, but I abide by them because it is a given law of the country, duly passed by the Commonwealth Parliament of Australia, and that man there, the member for Blain, grub though he may be, has the same responsibility as everyone else in the Northern Territory to abide by the law ...
Mr MILLS: Madam Speaker, just to be consistent …
Madam SPEAKER: Deputy Chief Minister, I ask you to withdraw, thank you.
Mr STIRLING: I withdraw it, Madam Speaker. He feels somehow that he is above the law; that he does not have to abide by the law as other Territorians. How does he feel about seat belts in motor vehicles? How does he feel about our drink driving laws? Does he find them offensive? Does he not want to abide by them? We might all have laws sometimes that we do not agree with, but as a parliamentarian, a member of this Legislative Assembly, you have a responsibility above all other citizens to respect and uphold the laws, not just of the Northern Territory but, indeed, of the Commonwealth of Australia. However, finding it offensive as he does, that he does not understand it, he feels somehow qualified to try to amend the full Federal Court decision through his own legislation.
This bill will not be supported. As the member for Blain knows, the government sought legal advice from the Solicitor-General as to whether the bill he was putting forward could possibly achieve its purported aim. The member for Blain knows the result of that advice, as he received, in full, a briefing from the Solicitor-General on the issue. I go back to my earlier statement. It was a decision made by the full Federal Court in interpreting a Commonwealth law, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. The Solicitor-General advised that the Aboriginal Land Amendment (Inter-Tidal Waters) Bill 2007 could achieve nothing more than is presently permitted by section 5(8) of the Aboriginal Land Act and does not overcome, importantly, the necessity for the grant of permission to fish in waters overlying Aboriginal land.
The bill seeks to amend the Territory Aboriginal Land Act to allow land councils or traditional Aboriginal owners to exempt persons - all persons, or a class of persons - from the requirement for a permit in relation to Aboriginal inter-tidal waters. However, the bill does not, and cannot, validly authorise fishing in Aboriginal inter-tidal waters. As is acknowledged in the second reading speech, the bill simply provides the option of removing the requirement for a permit. This, of course, would not, of itself, permit people to lawfully fish in the waters overlying Aboriginal land. In the absence of a licence conferred pursuant to section 19 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, traditional owners, even if able to and want to grant ad hoc permission, could equally refuse or withdraw permission granted whenever they saw fit. What sort of situation would you have? It is okay to go fishing there, and you get all set up and get down there, and then they say: ‘No, we have changed our minds, we do not want you to go’.
At least with the permit system you have some guarantee and surety of access that that permit will stand up, as opposed to perhaps thinking you have permission to go to some place but you have not spoken to the right traditional owner, or you have not received the right permission from the rightful people who speak for that country. The permit system, at least as it stands at the moment, gives that clarity.
In any case, why would traditional owners, the land trusts, or any of the land councils involved here, want to jeopardise what the traditional owners have been fighting for; that is, the right to control access to the inter-tidal zone on the grounds that they own it? That is the decision by the full Federal Court, so why would they jeopardise that legal position, having won in the full Federal Court and say: ‘Oh well, do not worry about it. That does not mean anything’. I am sure the full Federal Court would take a very dim view of a right won at law simply being ignored by the people by some form of blanket exemption envisaged by this bill.
What sort of chance would they have of continuing their fight to the High Court if, having won in the full Federal Court, they turned around and said: ‘Actually, we did not really mean that. We do not expect you to get a permit; it is open access as always and we were only joking, guys’. The High Court might take a pretty dim view of that by the time it got up there and say: ‘These people are not even serious about their rights because they have done nothing to put in place a system which respects them as traditional owners of these inter-tidal zones’. That respect is the recognition that you have to get a permit.
On the contrary, the land council, particularly the Northern Land Council, played a very cooperative role in getting an interim licensing system up, conferring a single licence to fish in all waters overlying Aboriginal land. Whether it is Anindilyakwa Land Council, the Tiwi Land Council, or Northern Land Council waters, the ability was to obtain a permit to cover each of those areas through the Northern Land Council upon conditions which include compliance with the provisions of the Fisheries Act, and which can only be terminated in certain defined events.
Importantly in that, I welcome the cooperation of the Northern Land Council in ensuring that if you got a permit, you were signing on to comply with the provisions of the Fisheries Act, notwithstanding that the effect of the full Federal Court decision was to wipe out the validity of the Northern Territory Fisheries Act within these waters. We did get an interim solution to let fishers keep fishing in every place they have before, whilst the process of a challenge was sorted out and an appeal lodged to challenge this decision in the High Court. We have a hearing date set for 4 December 2007 and a decision setting out our legal position is due, probably in the first part of next year, given that the High Court will take the best part of six months to bring down a decision.
Madam Speaker, it demonstrates further exactly how irrelevant this bill is. It simply would not get you there regarding the ability to fish anyway. The landowners would not be able to exercise any authority and any right that they have won in the full Federal Court. They would be left looking like lame sheep by the time it got to the High Court, trying to continue a fight that they had apparently turned their back on by not seeking to enshrine their rights by some sort of system.
This is a classic piece of absolutely pointless, political posturing by the member for Blain, including his interview with Julia Christensen on 1 August 2007. It is a disgrace and it reflects very poorly on the member for Blain, that he, as an elected member of this Assembly, can stand in public and say that he does not understand the legislation, he finds it offensive, and he will not comply with it. He ought to correct the record on that at some point, because, until he does, that is a shadow over him as an elected member of this parliament. It is a blight on his career as a person sworn to uphold the laws of the Northern Territory and the Commonwealth of Australia. It cannot sit easily with him to be out there calling on people, telling the world that he was going to refuse to comply with a duly passed law, and encouraging others to break the law alongside him. Not a good look for a member of parliament, and he would do well to put the record straight at the first opportunity.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, to correct the record, at the invitation of the Attorney-General, is something I would have to swallow my pride to do so. The nastiness that rises to the surface so easily is discomforting and has been referred to on a couple of occasions today. In a different context and a different frame of mind, the member for Nhulunbuy would perhaps understand …
Mr Stirling: Why are you doing this and not the shadow Attorney-General?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: Now, we will probably continue with the same …
Mr Stirling: No answer to that?
Mr MILLS: The Deputy Chief Minister, whose behaviour I find appalling at times, and there are times that – anyway, I …
Mr Stirling: It only encourages me, Terry.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: Anyway, it is as though the Attorney-General really sincerely seeks an explanation for the propositions that he put on the table. In fact, there is no such desire to seek an explanation as he is posturing around just seeking mischief. I have an interest and some responsibility for matters that pertain to people in my own electorate regarding particularly amateur fishermen but, more so, indigenous affairs. That is the reason I came to this issue. Not that it would help you to understand if you had a mind or a will to consider and to think of such things.
But no, you would prefer to sink into the gutter …
Mr Stirling: What about births, deaths and marriages? What about Bob Collins? Your electorate, was it, Bob Collins?
Madam SPEAKER: Order, Deputy Chief Minister!
Mr MILLS: … and you would try to dredge and find some sort of muck …
Mr Stirling: Bob Collins – it all happened in your electorate, did it? It all happened in your electorate as well. Well, that is amazing.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, Deputy Chief Minister!
Mr MILLS: … you have not spent any time considering the …
Madam SPEAKER: Deputy Chief Minister, cease interjecting.
Mr MILLS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr Stirling: I am seeking an explanation, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Deputy Chief Minister, cease interjecting. Member for Blain, please direct your comments through the Chair.
Mr MILLS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Rather than go to places at the urging of the Attorney-General, whom I am having difficulty respecting at this point, I will leave it aside.
The Attorney-General has paid little reference to the manner in which this bill was put before parliament. There was no reference to the second reading speech. It was brought in good faith. The purpose of it was to find a solution in a time of uncertainty. The source of the offence which was contained within that interview which, perhaps because of the strength of my feelings, may have masked it. However, that would not have bothered the Attorney-General; he would selectively quote from that just to try to mock the opponent on the other side.
Underneath this is an issue that caused some concern; that being the potential for this decision to create uncertainty, which it has, and, more importantly, where the source of offence lies which may be difficult for you to understand. I saw the potential in the time of uncertainty to increase racial division in the Northern Territory. It is from that place that I drew my deepest concern. I was concerned about the way that our laws are being administered that will create an environment where there is greater racial division. I saw the way that this was being managed. We needed a solution put on the table where we could possibly find at least a period of certainty between the time that this was put on the table and the time that we have now have, 4 December, a means to have some stability and certainty.
You have done yourself no credit whatsoever, Attorney-General, in not reflecting on the second reading speech, the mechanics that were described within the bill itself and the source of the offence, which was that I am very concerned about the way things are progressing in regards to these sorts of matters that will create potentially greater division within the Northern Territory. That is the primary source of my offence. Granted, my comments can be interpreted and, of course by those with a will to do so, will interpret it in ways that suit their own agenda and to run them in a mocking way and to exclude certain parts of that argument.
I maintain my position though I am not taking any concern whatsoever from the mock outrage by the member for Nhulunbuy. My position is still clear. I am still deeply concerned about the potential of these sorts of matters to create and enhance and further widen the racial divide in the Northern Territory. I did that mindful that some would interpret it incorrectly, but I am really encouraged that the wider community, even those amateur fishermen, are also really concerned about it. It is not as much about someone telling me I cannot fish somewhere; it is why am I now someone different? It may surprise the member for Nhulunbuy that I took the time to speak to traditional owners because I felt we needed to find a better way of solving these problems.
This is an action that has been ongoing for some time. I suspect that it was a surprise even for the Northern Land Council that it was given the nod. The ramifications of this are absolutely profound. I find it quite distressing that the member for Nhulunbuy, after all his time in parliament, seems to live with this jaundiced view about anything outside of his own jurisdiction, largely outside the Labor Party and anything that comes across from the Chamber. He would much prefer to vilify, mock and belittle, bully and use thuggish-type language just to win a point, and go monstering and stomping through his lobby and be a jolly good fellow amongst his mates. I do not find it impressive in the slightest. If you read the second reading speech, if you spent some time …
Mr Stirling: You brought it yourself with the stupidity of your comments.
Mr MILLS: But if it has come from you, it means nothing - absolutely nothing. I have even less respect now when you have spent no time whatsoever in weighing the arguments that were presented, the proposals that were put by way of this motion …
Mr Stirling: By the advice from the Solicitor-General saying it was a waste of time. That is not worth anything apparently.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: To go to that final point, there were matters that were raised within that briefing that I still remain of the view that there was a way through this and those discussions were had. But, of course, once you have the numbers, the strength, the power - might is right, and you can just blast your own way through these paths and away you go.
So, perhaps it is a happy day for you. Not a happy day for me, but nonetheless, I gave it a shot. I wanted to find a solution so at least we could have some stability during these times of uncertainty. Any advice that you have offered me, I will not be taking.
Motion negatived.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Madam Speaker, the Parap Newsagency is a very popular and busy business, and it is open seven days a week. Deborah and Philip Kobelt are the hard-working owners and they provide essential items and services to the local community including paper deliveries, lotto tickets, an excellent range of stationery and cards, as well as the facility to pay bills and lodge classified advertisements.
Parap Newsagency also provides donations and sponsorship for local organisations and Parap Primary School. Philip is involved in the Parap Village Traders’ Association, which works to promote the shopping village and weekly markets. The staff at the newsagency are always extremely friendly and they have a very loyal customer base. I acknowledge Philip and Deborah, and their team, Emma, Harvey, Maryanna, Pauline, Tania and Whitney.
The Tournament of Minds always attracts a lot of interest in schools right around Australia. Competition has just finished in the Territory, and I am pleased to report that a team from Darwin High School won the Secondary Section in the Regional Tournament of Minds problem-solving competition. They are now gearing up to represent the Territory at the national final in Canberra on Saturday, 20 October 2007.
Tournament of Minds participants are required to solve demanding, open-ended challenges from one of the following disciplines: Language Literature; Maths Engineering; or Social Sciences. It is a great opportunity for students with a lateral bent to demonstrate their skills and talents in a challenging, dynamic and public way. Teams work together on a long-term challenge for six weeks without assistance from teachers, parents or peers. They rely on each other and are encouraged to explore possibilities and experiment with ideas as they try to construct the best possible solution to the problem they have been given. They then develop a creative and original way to communicate this solution to others, such as a short play or dramatic piece.
The Territory team will present their challenge solution to a panel of judges and an audience on Tournament Day. They have 10 minutes in which to present and must do so within a 3 m x 3 m performance area. The teams must also participate in a Spontaneous Challenge. This requires excellent group cooperation skills, rapid interchange of ideas, and the ability to think creatively and quickly. The Territory Team leaves for Canberra on 18 October, and they have funded the trip themselves through busking, car washing and raffles. I wish the team all the best for the final: Elise Moo, Megan Parry, Rebecca Keeley, Lewis Dostine, Stuart Fong, Kathleen Fong, Briana Harding, as well as trip facilitator, Cheryl Dimmock. I know they will do Darwin High, and the Territory, proud.
Sport is a big part of our Territory lifestyle, and recently Alice Springs’ athletes across all codes showed that high quality sport is alive and well in the Centre. In the local Netball competition, fierce rivals Federals and Memo Rovers fought out a great battle, with Federals coming out on top by just two goals 43 to 41. The lead changed continuously throughout the match, and I am told that the skills and pace exhibited by both teams was extremely high.
The soccer grand final between Federals and Verdi was another hard fought match. Federals were trying to stop Verdi from going back to back, and Verdi were trying to prevent Federals from getting both the minor and major premiership. It was a great game, with Federals eventually winning 1 to 0.
The Rugby League Grand Final was between Wests Dragons and Memo Bulls, with Wests aiming for their fourth premiership in a row. Brian Stirling, a former Territory representative, came back into the Dragons team to help them dominate the game and won very comfortably, 46 to 14.
I was fortunate to be able to attend two great games of AFL when I was last in Alice Springs. The Ngurratjuta Cup produced a great grand final, with all the skills and brilliance that we have come to expect from community football. The Yuendumu Magpies, backed by the member for Stuart, faced off against Papunya Eagles, backed by the member for Macdonnell, in front of more than 3000 spectators. Papunya came into the match chasing back-to-back premierships, but Yuendumu came away winners by 41 points. It was a fantastic game of footy, and I congratulate the Yuendumu Magpies on their victory.
The AFL CA grand final was held the day before between the Pioneer Eagles and Wests. In a close encounter, Wests won 10-14-74, to the Eagles 11-4-70. There were great skills on display by all the players in the fast paced, and very competitive, game. Unfortunately, as we all know now, a great game was marred by an unfortunate brawl following the final siren. There is no place for violence in sport, and I sincerely hope it will never be repeated.
In the basketball, Memo Magic scored a surprise 18 point victory over the Rockets. Memo’s Yanni Hatzimihail scored 32 points to help Memo to their 90 to 72 win. In the ladies basketball, the Federal Wallabies defeated Rockets 73 to 44, despite an 18 point haul by victorious Fed’s netball shooter, Tegan Pabst.
Congratulations to all the teams in these competitions who have played throughout the season.
Finally tonight, the Commonwealth Bank Small Business Champions Awards recognises outstanding achievement within the small business community throughout Australia. At the Northern Territory awards night held in Darwin recently, Alice Springs-based childcare chain Lil’Antz came out on top in its category of Children’s Services. Lil’Antz is well known and very well respected in their field. Starting out as provider of outside school hours care at various school sites around Alice Springs, they established their first childcare centre on Undoolya Road in 2004. They are now expanding with construction work well under way on another purpose-built childcare centre in Bath Street. This is great news for young families in Alice Springs, and for the town’s employers.
As the winner of the Small Business Champions Category, Lil’Antz, with 16 other Territory businesses, will go on to represent the Territory at the national awards in Sydney later this year. Congratulations to all the staff of Lil’Antz, especially Alison Haggett, for their outstanding commitment to childcare in Alice. I wish them the best of luck for the national awards next month.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to continue my report to the parliament from my study tour undertaken during some of September. I ask that anyone reading this Parliamentary Record refer to my comments made in the Chamber last night, and I continue from there as follows.
There are also parenting orders. Teachers, for instance, can apply for these, and a range of parenting programs are offered which assist parents. Teachers can apply for them as well, and police and schools can go to people’s homes and say, for instance, to parents that their kids are not going to school and that they, as well as people from other relevant agencies, can get their kids to school in a practical way. It is a very hands-on approach, and one which is delivering outcomes.
Family intervention was considered a priority area, as it seemed to explain some causes of antisocial behaviour. I have given a relatively brief explanation of this area, and the amount of material is significant. However, the most important lesson is that there are real possibilities here, and opportunities to learn from these policy initiatives.
I met with the Youth Justice Board. The Territory does not have an entity such as this and I was keen to assess whether we should. The board focuses on antisocial behaviour, and the orders courts are able to make. I wanted to learn how well those orders are working, how the young people to whom they apply respond, and what processes exist to monitor the success or otherwise of the orders. A range of issues affecting young offenders was also discussed, and I received a great deal of written material, some of which I will quote during this part of my report.
The Youth Justice Board is an independent, non-departmental government body established to advise on the operation of the Youth Justice System and National Standards. As it is independent, it can respond efficiently to issues, monitor performance, and identify effective practice. I was advised that the statutory aim of the Youth Justice System is the prevention of offending by children and young people.
There have been a range of youth justice reforms in the United Kingdom, and I was advised by the board that these have delivered results. The results include a reduction in reconviction rates; improvements in access to services; an increase in confidence in the courts and police; and an improvement in custodial regimes.
There are many aspects of the work that the board does of interest and potential application to the Territory. I would like to talk about one, namely, antisocial behaviour orders, or ASBOS, as they are known. These can be used for adults as well as young people. Although they are controversial and have received some criticism, the board considers them to be largely successful. In essence, they contain prohibition considered necessary to prevent a repetition of a person’s antisocial behaviour. The evidence, however, is that the use of ASBOS has made communities safer.
ASBOS are civil orders that protect the public from behaviour that causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. They can be imposed for a maximum period of two years. Importantly, the orders are not criminal, although a breach is, and they are not intended to punish an offender but rather to protect the wellbeing of the community. Individuals and organisations can apply for them, such as housing organisations, for instance. So the application is quite broad.
I have merely cited some of what the Respect Task Force and the Youth Justice Board do, and it is important to note that they work together and very closely. Given the problems that we have in the Territory and the desire of the community to see results - and they are entitled to - we should look at what other jurisdictions and countries are doing, and we should not stop looking for ways to address these issues.
Having been informed about its work, met with personnel and read the literature, it is clear that the Youth Justice Board is doing well. However, much more work would need to be done in order to make a final determination as to whether such a body could and should be established in the Territory Certainly there are possibilities, in particular, of looking at the antisocial behaviour orders and their broad application.
I met with a senior representative from Qantas to discuss opportunities for the Territory. The Territory government has supported promotional efforts in the United Kingdom, but I was keen to learn about their effectiveness and what more could be done. My meeting occurred in the week after the Tourism Minister was in Singapore doing his best, like me, to spruik for the Territory. The competitiveness of the international market became apparent and it is clear that Qantas is doing what they can for the Territory.
Unlike some members in this House, I am a strong supporter of Qantas and value very much the work they do in the community. Qantas has already granted a concession to the Territory in common rated flights from the UK through to Singapore and Darwin. This is to be welcomed. Passengers undertake both flights at no extra cost. There are a number of difficulties with increasing airline capacity. Jetstar is filling the need to a large extent and all jurisdictions are competing for the tourism market share. It is clear that the community does want Qantas to do even more for the Northern Territory. However, having had a lengthy discussion, I cannot inform the parliament that there is anything on the horizon. Naturally, that is disappointing.
In Singapore, I met with the Deputy High Commissioner and senior staff. They welcomed the opportunity to meet with me and we had a very good exchange of information, and they assisted me with a range of other visits. Unfortunately though, my meeting with Hunt Oil and Singapore Petroleum did not eventuate; however, I did manage to meet with British Gas. Most of its exploration activities are currently concentrated in the Atlantic region; however, it is pursuing a strategy of diversification. Officials from the federal Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources, as well as Geoscience Australia, met with management of British Gas during their visit to Singapore in July to promote offshore acreage release and, at that time, British Gas indicated an interest. While no decision has been made as to whether it would bid during the current offshore release round, they would like to increase their efforts in the next few years.
British Gas has, together with Singapore Petroleum and Hunt Oil, shown both an interest and capability in investing in Australian oil and gas exploration. British Gas was to invest and is currently considering a range of options but they will be some years into the future. British Gas will also consider the possibility of joint ventures with other operators. We discussed Glyde Point at our meeting. It was the view of those at the meeting that Glyde Point was desirable as a place for further industrialisation.
It is important to note that this was before the Chief Minister had made her announcement to rule it out of bounds as a site for future development. I feel certain that her announcement would have raised eyebrows in many companies looking to the future, though obviously, not all companies. The CLP identified Glyde Point as a site for major gas-based industry but this government’s decision to rule it out is, we believe, a short-sighted decision.
British Gas, nevertheless, sees the expansion of LNG as a great opportunity. When Labor came to office, the foundations had already been put in place. The Territory government must do all that it can to ensure further development, and that means having the infrastructure in place, as well as a commitment that goes beyond the issuing of media releases.
I now turn to my visit to the Budget Terminal in Singapore. The Budget Terminal, which is relatively new, is run by the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore. I was provided with an extensive tour of this impressive terminal, and met with the Assistant Director of the authority. It is a no-frills terminal: no air bridges, no lounges and minimal handling. Passengers are assembled in a large area and that is where they wait.
This is a marketing opportunity for a number of reasons. We discussed the possibility of staging Territory-themed events and interactive displays to entertain and inform passengers and visitors to the Budget Terminal. There are obvious opportunities for the Territory to pursue and it is important that we do so. Because it is a relatively new terminal, the time is right for the Territory to get its foot in the door. In fact, I was advised that I was the first politician from Australia to meet with them to discuss possibilities.
Currently two airlines, Tiger Airways and Cebu Pacific, use the terminal, but it is hoped that more will come, and I am sure they will. Importantly, the terminal has about 130 000 passengers in it per month. It is those passengers the Territory can target. It is designed for a capacity of 2.7 million passengers per year, and it has scope for further expansion. Tiger Airways operates between Singapore and Darwin, Perth and Melbourne and has been extremely active in our region and in this country. We have heard government ministers talking about Tiger Airways with great enthusiasm. There is now an opportunity to further promote the Territory in conjunction with Tiger Airways, and is an opportunity too good to miss. Given that Tiger Airways has decided to make Melbourne its hub, we have to make the most of what is left for the Territory.
I propose that themed events such as promotion of indigenous culture, such as live performances, displays of bush tucker, as well as static displays and so on, could exist in the terminal and there is room for it. They were keen to explore this idea and, indeed, had in the past given some consideration to similar concepts. I undertook to write to the Tourism Minister and to provide a copy to Ms Goh, with whom I met. I said that I would encourage him to request his office or Tourism NT to put a proposal together for the terminal representatives, and Ms Goh said that she would facilitate a meeting with Tiger Airways and, possibly, Cebu Pacific.
We all know what a great job Tourism NT does for the Territory. Over the years, we have seen great marketing ideas produced, and it was not all that long ago when the Tourism Minister talked about getting some promotional material on the side of London cabs. We have also heard Tourism ministers talk about static displays at airports, in lifts and in key marketing areas. I know those at Tourism NT would agree that in tourism, creative marketing is what it is all about, and this is a market worth pursuing. I formally invite the minister to pick up this idea and run with it. I will, however, be getting a letter to him by the end of the week.
I also met with the Singapore National Parks Board to discuss the Greening of Singapore initiative. This has direct application to Darwin because it represents what is considered to be best practice of how urban greening can be harnessed to improve the quality of the environment and create an aesthetically pleasing garden city.
I also met with representatives of the Singapore Centre for Urban Greening and Ecology, which is a joint initiative of the National Parks Board and the Singapore Workforce Development Agency. There has been much talk from government in recent times about greening Darwin and establishing a ribbon of green around the city. More must be done than simply announcing an intention, however. While I know that the Chief Minister met with a representative from the board earlier and, according to a report to parliament, was given a special presentation, I spent most of the day with senior members of the board and others and obtained a thorough understanding of the issues. I obtained a detailed understanding of what they achieved, why they did it, how they did it, and how it has application to Darwin.
Singapore’s former Prime Minister started the Greening of Singapore in about 1967. He wanted Singapore to be different and beautified. The attention to detail of Singapore’s greening was significant and impressive and there have been, and continue to be, a number of benefits. The streetscaping is obvious to anyone who looks around. In some areas there are tunnels of trees. This reduces temperature; they estimate between five and nine degrees. There are also social benefits of living in a city where there are trees everywhere. Singapore is now looking to move from being a garden city to a city in a garden. It is widely acknowledged that Singapore represents best practice of how urban greening can improve a city’s aesthetic appearance that enhances its economic activity and outcomes. It came about to meet the demands of rapid urbanisation and was led from the top.
The Garden City Program was established and it grew from there and it continues. I was taken to a number of sites and the benefits are simply amazing. There is a practical and policy-led framework within which the greening continues. The Streetscape Greening Master Plan is a work in progress and it is extensive. One project within the plan is the greening of rooftops of apartment blocks. Tests have shown that, among the environmental benefits, temperatures of buildings can be reduced and, accordingly, active greening of rooftops is to be encouraged. They are researching more, and in particular what types of plants will best suit this specific type of planting. There is much that can be learned that has direct application to Darwin from their research.
Mr Deputy Speaker, as I have about 30 seconds left I will stop there for tonight and continue my report during the sittings.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Deputy Speaker, this evening I pay tribute to a remarkable and wonderful Territory woman who, sadly, recently passed away. I refer to Kathryn Anne Flynn. Her funeral was held at St Mary’s Cathedral last Saturday morning. My deepest condolences to her husband, John, and her children. I had hoped to attend the funeral. I had made babysitting arrangements but, unfortunately, I ended up spending the morning at Royal Darwin Hospital with one of my children.
I want to recognise the significant contribution that Kathryn made to the Territory. I propose to do so by reading into the adjournment debate the eulogy that was provided to the large gathering at the cathedral by the former Chief Magistrate, Hugh Bradley:
A pretty good description of Kathryn.
That was the eulogy read by Hugh Bradley at the Mass to remember Kathryn Anne Flynn and to give her our community’s last respects.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, she was a woman whom I found to be a great inspiration. She was a woman who was very strong and, to me, a fantastic and outstanding Territorian. She set a standard that I aspired to in her absolute dedication to the community, particularly in her dedication to all Territorians and the pursuit of the rights of Aboriginal people, of women, and her absolute courage in her illness, was truly amazing.
She had such incredible dignity. I feel very privileged to have known Kathryn in the last few years that I have known her. As I said, I am very sorry to have missed her funeral because my son was ill. I hear reports from my mother that there were many people there, giving their respects to Kathryn and their love and support to the family, John and the children, and the grandchildren.
I thank John Hardy of Hardy Aviation for organising, quite appropriately, a fly over in respect of this late, great Territory aviator. May she rest in peace.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
PETITION
Amalgamation of the Litchfield Shire Council
Amalgamation of the Litchfield Shire Council
Mr WOOD (Nelson)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition not conforming with standing orders from 146 petitioners relating to the amalgamation of the Litchfield Shire Council. This petition is similar to petition Nos 55, 61 and 62. Madam Speaker, I move the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- We the residents of Litchfield Shire request that the NT government delay the implementations of its planned amalgamation of the Litchfield Shire Council and the development of a new super council until these changes are fully costed and the residents are adequately consulted.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
NT Export and Industry Awards
NT Export and Industry Awards
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, today I report to the House on the Chief Minister’s Northern Territory Export and Industry Awards, which were held in Parliament House last Thursday. As the patron of the awards, and the Minister for Asian Relations and Trade, I was particularly pleased to help present the awards and hear about the achievements of some of our most innovative and successful exporters and manufacturers. More businesses than ever before are excelling in the Territory, and our rapidly improving export performance is proof of that.
Exports are an extremely important contributor to our economy. Last financial year, the value of exported goods from the Territory was $3.3bn. This figure is expected to rise when the value of exports of services has been determined and added to the merchandise trade. This year, the value of our exports is forecast to jump to around $4.7bn and, while the resources boom is obviously having a significant impact, our small to medium enterprises are contributing in a big way.
I am pleased to advise the House of this year’s winners.
The Emerging Exporter Award went to Pensyl Pty Ltd. Pensyl grows and exports timbers from the Tiwi Islands and has established reliable markets for its timber in southern China.
The Small to Medium Manufacturer Award was won by Safaritrek International Leisure Group, a small business located in the Darwin Business Park. The business exports an Australian designed and manufactured mosquito control system, and eco-lodge tents into Africa, the Middle East and Asia.
Our Small Business Award winner was the well-known Guppytraders.com which has been successfully exporting its financial market analysis information and techniques for a number of years. It has established a solid name for itself in China, which has the potential to become the world’s most significant financial market.
The Arts and Entertainment Award was taken out by Maningrida Arts and Culture. Maningrida artists have established a worldwide reputation for the production of high-quality indigenous art on bark, wooden and fibre sculptures. Through their extensive international exhibitions, mainly in Europe, indigenous culture is being shared with the world.
The Agribusiness Award winner was Porosus Pty Ltd. Porosus, better known as the Darwin Crocodile Farm, has developed a crocodile breeding and growing program enabling it to produce high-volume and high-quality crocodile skins which are exported for processing before being sent to major fashion houses to be manufactured into high-quality luxury items such as handbags and shoes. Porosus’ aim is to have crocodile skins from the Territory recognised as being the finest quality skins in the world.
The Education Award was won by Charles Darwin University. The CDU continues to attract international students from all over the world - in fact, 60 countries - and it is growing reputation will only increase those numbers in the year ahead.
The Services Award went to Perkins Shipping. Perkins Shipping Group is Australia’s largest privately owned shipping company and provides regular shipping services to Singapore, Indonesia and East Timor.
Congratulations to all our winners. All the award category winners are automatically nominated to become the NT Exporter of the Year which recognises the overall export achievements for business. This year’s 2007 Northern Territory Exporter of the Year was won by Perkins Shipping. Perkins is a worthy winner, not only for its exporting success, but also as being one of the Territory’s most respected corporate citizens and a significant contributor to the economy.
All the winners will now go forward to the annual Australian Export Awards which are staged by Austrade. This year, the dinner will be held in Brisbane at the end of November. We will be offering, as usual, financial assistance to our winners to help them with the travel costs to attend the finals. I acknowledge and thank the International Business Council of the Chamber of Commerce for all their hard work in making these awards possible. They have done a terrific job. I commend this report to the House.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, the opposition supports the announcement of these awards and acknowledges the winners. In all those who were involved behind each one of these enterprises, small or large, lies the very essence of what can and does make the Territory a place with huge potential. This potential, and the capacity of people properly supported, enables them to capitalise on our strategic advantage within the region.
I acknowledge the work of the Chamber of Commerce Northern Territory as well as the International Business Council. I had the opportunity the other night to attend their AGM. It was good to see a well attended gathering with that sense of purpose and vision and opportunity that is presented by being in the Territory. I commend the reappointed chair, Mark, to that position.
I would just like to mention the crocodile industry. I have had the good fortune in recent times to go through one of the crocodile farms. I was impressed with the operation and note that they are award winners. It is a fascinating industry. I was impressed to learn that the value of the leather being sent to Europe is the highest quality in the world. The demand is so strong that the capacity to meet adequate supply has resulted in an increase in the capacity to produce crocodiles in the Territory, which will result in a by-product, and an unusual by-product for an industry such as this, which is crocodile meat. At the moment, it is a challenge to add value to the meat. However, on my recent trip to Taiwan it was a surprise to the Taiwanese that there is this by-product. That is an interesting avenue which I will be further exploiting: to be able to find a good market for crocodile meat in Taiwan.
Aboriginal Art Centres
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arts and Museums): Madam Speaker, one of the Territory’s most important industries, the Aboriginal visual arts and craft, is at a critical turning point in its history. On the one hand, as the federal minister, Senator George Brandis, noted a couple of months ago, Aboriginal ‘artists from the Northern Territory are now finding their feet in the international market’, and that ‘all Australians should be proud of how well indigenous art is doing nationally and internationally’. One the other hand, these same artists, and the art centres they operate, are in a dangerous limbo - a combination of the unintended consequences of the current federal intervention into the Northern Territory and the climate of an approaching federal election.
These factors have meant that there has been no action at the federal level of government on the recently concluded Senate inquiry into the Aboriginal visual arts and craft sector; an inquiry that urged important action for the industry.
As both sides of this parliament would be aware, wherever possible, I seek bipartisan solutions, and in this report to the Legislative Assembly, I also seek bipartisan support from both sides of politics at the federal level. It is perfectly clear that one of the greatest unintended consequences of the unilateral abolition of CDEP has been its dramatic impact on the most vibrant sector of Aboriginal enterprise, the Aboriginal visual arts and craft industry. It is clear to me the federal minister, Dr Sharman Stone, has been ill advised on this matter.
What is happening for the art centres is not a transition from welfare to work; it is the exact opposite. Hundreds of productive, economically valuable jobs are, in fact, being transitioned into inappropriate welfare-based activities. First, there should be an immediate intervention by her to ensure that all artists and art worker positions currently supported by CDEP are maintained, and their inclusion under a reformed CDEP as essential economic activities on our remote communities and regional towns. This would reflect one of the major recommendations of the recent Senate inquiry for a properly funded approach to support for employment at these art centres.
Following from this there should be a commitment by both sides of politics here and federally to the issues of funding the reform and expansion of the National Arts and Craft Industry Support scheme, which underpins the development of proper business planning, management and governance for our art centres. Similarly, for the Senate inquiry’s strong endorsement of a properly planned capital and infrastructure fund for the industry in the order of $25m over the next five years. On this issue, I draw attention to the promise by the current federal government of ABA funding to such infrastructure at the last election of $5m, which has yet to be realised, as well as the sum of $10m through the ABA that is being negotiated this year under the Northern Territory/Commonwealth Overarching Agreement which, again, seems to have been bogged down or forgotten.
Madam Speaker, we are talking here about the future of some 5000 Aboriginal visual artists and craft workers who are genuinely and productively involved in developing our regional economies as well as supplying non-welfare incomes to themselves and their families. This is the very stuff of bipartisanship in politics in the field of indigenous affairs. Members from this side of the Assembly, the opposition and our Independents have all been on record praising the Aboriginal visual arts and craft industry. There is similar bipartisan support at the federal level. Let us hope that, in the coming months, no matter who is successful in the coming election, such solid bipartisanship is translated into support for this great industry.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her report this morning. It sounds like there is absolute gloom and doom out there in Aboriginal visual arts and craft, and I do not believe that for a moment. I believe that Aboriginal arts and craft in the Northern Territory is going ahead in leaps and bounds. I do not believe for a moment that, with the inference, it is going to be falling into a great hole of disaster because people are not going to receive CDEP funding.
While I was in South Australia, I attended the Aboriginal Art and Cultural Centre in Ceduna and was able to find out about an exhibition a number of indigenous artists from across the north of South Australia were having at the Red Poles Gallery at McLaren Vale. I made a point of going to McLaren Vale to have a look at it because I know many of those artists. Let me tell you that those artists are not CDEP funded. They do their own art work; they put it through the Aboriginal cultural centre in Ceduna. Seven of those pieces of art were sold before the exhibition opened and all of them were well into the thousands mark, and that money was going to those artists. I do not believe for a moment that it is as gloom and doom as the minister is making out.
I am very supportive of indigenous visual arts and craft right throughout Australia, especially in the Territory because it is all different arts presented right throughout Australia, but I do not believe for a moment that it is the gloom and doom as the minister is saying. However, the minister has support from the CLP in developing it further.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I have a few thoughts on it. Minister, it is important that we sustain the art industry for Aboriginal people. That is most important. I believe we need to change the culture, the attitude, of the way the art industry works in Aboriginal areas. For too long, we have relied on CDEP, but times have moved on. It is 2007, and that may have been okay 20 years ago, but we need now to think about how we are going to get the art industry to function as it should if it were not indigenous. There is an art industry in non-indigenous areas that is successful and works without CDEP. What I am suggesting is that we need a change in culture. The minister should be providing the incentive and initiative, and saying to the Aboriginal art industry: ‘How can we do it without CDEP? What do we need to do without relying upon that type of employment?’ Surely, with the amount of money that is in the Aboriginal art industry, that should be employed to create real jobs.
Yes, we do support the indigenous art industry. Yes, we believe it is important for many of our people. However, we have to change the way we think. The art industry has to start thinking, ‘How can we support these people doing what they do now but in a different way so that they have the funds to make the industry viable?’. Make it the same as if I was an artist in town and non-indigenous: how do I go about my business?
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arts and Museums): Madam Speaker, I thank both members for their contributions. For the member for Katherine, it might pay in South Australia but if she is the shadow minister she should better inform herself and do some trips around the Northern Territory and talk to arts and craft centres where CDEP is a central part …
Mrs Miller: They are the same in South Australia. Pit Lands operates exactly the same.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I listened to you, member for Katherine. At least give me the courtesy of responding to your ill-informed comments about this; that CDEP is being gutted by this federal government. Its impact is going to be real. For both members, I say pick up the Senate inquiry report that was done where submissions were given by the industry, as well as us as government, to look at productive changes, to look at the governance and other operations of art centres. I did say in my report that through the art centres, as well as CDEP, there are artists who are supplying incomes to themselves and their families. But if you can use CDEP effectively as leverage to get full-time employment, that is a good thing. So, instead of standing up and making ill-informed comments about CDEP, you are better off informing yourself. Read the Senate inquiry and then you might be able to have a different outlook.
Indigenous Economic Development
Activities in East Arnhem
Activities in East Arnhem
Mr VATSKALIS (Business and Economic Development): Madam Speaker, my Department of Business, Economic and Regional Development, DBERD, is currently working with indigenous organisations and businesses in East Arnhem to broker funding and support, assist existing and emerging businesses, support business growth, and provide strategic direction to generate commercial activity within the region.
Current DBERD clients are the Laynhapuy Homelands Association; the Yirrkala Dhanbul Community Association; Deltareef Pty Ltd; Nyinyikay Dha Wuba Cultural Experiences; Dhimurru; Miwatj Health Organisation; and Marngarr Community Council.
Major projects currently under way include: the establishment of the East Arnhem Tourist Hub, in partnership with Tourism NT and Yirrkala Dhanbul; organising visits by passengers from the Orion cruise ship; establishment of indigenous tourism businesses on homelands; major organisational restructures and establishment of commercial operations within Laynhapuy, Yirrkala Dhanbul, Miwatj Health, Dhimurru and Marngarr; and assistance to grow indigenous businesses and employment within the region, including Deltareef.
Specifically, DBERD has recently brokered funding from the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations for the establishment of an Indigenous Tourism and Business Hub. The hub is currently housed within Yirrkala Dhanbul Community Association and employs a local indigenous woman as hub coordinator to oversee its operation. The hub is designed to provide front and back office services, including accounting, marketing and administration of local indigenous small businesses to established and emerging indigenous businesses within the region, and market local indigenous businesses within the region domestically and abroad. DBERD continues to work towards securing further funding and providing support to the hub during its establishment. DBERD is also considering actively supporting the product developments required to help the hub get tourism-ready product to the market.
Working in consultation with government departments and local stakeholders, DBERD has brokered significant funding to assist existing and emerging businesses to grow in the region and to increase employment within the region. Over $1m has already been approved and another $1.3m is pending. This includes funding for training, feasibility studies, and business plans to assess the viability and appropriate planning of products which include: Marngarr Market Garden; Marngarr civil works project - maintenance of the East Arnhem Highway; Marngarr Nursery; establishment of a motel at Yirrkala; Deltareef Pty Ltd - business plan and consultancies to grow business and indigenous employment; Laynhapuy Homelands Stores; Laynhapuy Transport and Taxi Service; Bawaka Cultural Experiences; Nyinyikay Dha Wuba; and Buymar.
The Northern Territory government is hosting the third Indigenous Economic Development Forum, Partners and Pathways, through the DBERD and will be held on 14 to 15 November 2007, in Darwin. Building on the previous two forums, this forum will have an emphasis on doing business, creating business opportunities, building business partnerships, celebrating successes, and developing capacity in indigenous communities to participate in sustainable economic activity.
The forum has the generous support of a number of partners and sponsors including: the Yothu Yindi Foundation; Perkins; Alcan Gove, and GEMCO from the Arnhem Land region. Alcan and GEMCO will be presenting case studies of their indigenous employment programs. Alcan will talk about YNOTS, the YBE Nabalco Operator Training School; and Alert, Alcan Learning Education and Regional Training. GEMCO will be talking about indigenous training and employment principles and how this led to real jobs retention of those skilled workers. We are looking forward to this year’s forum and providing opportunities for people to come together from a diverse range of industries and backgrounds to share knowledge and experiences, and to explore opportunities including business partnerships to achieve sustainable economic outcomes for indigenous Territorians.
Significant work has been carried out with Tourism NT to promote the Northern Territory and the East Arnhem region through the media, television and print, and increase awareness of East Arnhem as a tourist destination. The promotions include coverage in more than a dozen printed publications over the last 12 months and featured on Channel 9’s Things to Try Before You Die and the SBS television series Nerds FC.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I am sorry, I had a bit of difficulty hearing much of the minister’s report. However, those matters I heard certainly sounded interesting. We thank you for your report and look forward to hearing from you again in relation to the broad range of matters that you discussed. This highlights some of the difficulties that the opposition maintains in relation to ministerial reports. I look forward to reading in the Hansard what the minister had to say, because I was unable to hear …
Dr Burns: You were mocking him; that is what you were doing. You have not learned.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: I do not know …
Dr Burns: Yes, you were, I saw you!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms CARNEY: I do not know what planet the minister is on. I genuinely had trouble hearing the minister, as I invariably do. I have trouble hearing a couple of members on the other side, and I have said that in the Chamber on numerous occasions.
In any event, I do look forward to reading the Hansard. That will provide me with the opportunity to go through the matters the minister discussed. He did traverse a number of matters. The Minister for Health, who always likes to chip in with his comments, probably identified a level of interest from the opposition arising from the minister’s traversing of a number of portfolios. I thank the minister and look forward to reading the Hansard.
Mr VATSKALIS (Business and Economic Development): Madam Speaker, I sympathise with Leader of the Opposition who cannot hear properly. She probably suffers from the same problem as the previous Leader of the Opposition, who could not understand my accent. I was not born here and, unfortunately, I will not lose my accent. Therefore, I suggest next time she tries harder to understand me. None of the other members have any problems understanding my accent. I am very happy to speak to her face-to-face because, obviously, she does not seem to have any problem when I speak to her face-to-face, despite my strong Greek accent.
Cruise Ship Industry
Mr HENDERSON (Tourism): Madam Speaker, I would like to update the House on progress in developing the Northern Territory’s cruise shipping industry. I hope that members opposite will be able to hear what I have to say.
In late August, I was pleased to host a welcome function for the 2007 conference, an AGM of Cruise Downunder, the peak industry marketing body promoting Australia and the Pacific region as an international cruise shipping destination. The conference provided local organisers an opportunity to showcase Darwin as a vibrant harbour city, demonstrate our cruise strengths, and market the region as a desirable cruise ship destination. When the Territory last hosted this event in 2000, it attracted just 20 delegates. This year, we had over 85 delegates from Papua New Guinea, New Caledonia, Singapore, New Zealand, as well as Australia.
This stellar growth and interest in Darwin is reflected with the exciting developments in the cruise industry.
Conference delegates had the opportunity to hear two excellent international guest speakers, Darius Merhta, Director of Land Programs from Regent’s Seven Seas Cruises, one of the world’s major luxury cruise liner companies at the exclusive end of the market. In fact, the first port of call for Regent Seven Seas Mariner will be Darwin on 11 November 2007.
The other international speaker hosted to Darwin was Craig Milan, President of Royal Celebrity Tours and Senior Vice President Land Operations from Royal Caribbean Cruises, a company that operates 21 large ships and is one of the biggest cruise companies in the world.
In addition to the delegates learning more about the expectations of some of the more successful cruise ship companies in the world, I was also happy to learn from our visiting guests that they very much enjoyed their hosted visit around the Northern Territory, and are seriously looking at how they extend their pre- and post-touring, particularly for potential inclusion of Kakadu, the Red Centre and Aboriginal art trails.
It is estimated that cruise shipping had a direct and indirect impact on the Northern Territory economy of $8.6m in 2006-07, with over 11 000 passenger days, and 6700 crew days in the port of Darwin. We also have small luxury ships like Orion based here from April to September each year.
The first ship to arrive this season was the Pacific Princess on 3 October 2007. This is to be followed by the Holland America Lines ship Amsterdam on 31 October 2007.
My agency, Tourism NT, has been developing new strategies to take advantage of the cruise liners that do not currently visit our ports. Craig Milan’s company, Royal Caribbean Cruises, now includes Uluru as a pre- and post-tour option for passengers whilst visiting Sydney.
Last year, Tourism NT developed a new tour program and worked hard to convince Princess Tours in Seattle to include it within their program. The new Overland tour includes both Kakadu and Darwin as a new Ultimate Australia Tour. I am pleased to say we already have over 250 passengers booked from February to April 2008 on this brand new pre- or post-tour package.
In addition to these new visitors, we also have 750 passengers from the same cruise company booked on the Outback of Australia tour which includes one night in Uluru and one night in Alice Springs - a new record for this tour program. This is a fantastic result given that Princess Cruise Line docks in Sydney.
Facilities and infrastructure for cruising is moving ahead with the new $4.5m cruise terminal to open at the waterfront precinct in mid-2008. The new terminal will help attract even more cruise ships to Darwin by providing better passenger facilities and a more visually friendly drop-off and pick-up point. With most cruise lines expecting the provision of free shuttle services for the 2007-08 season, I have written to the Darwin City Council offering Territory government funding support of $25 000 and inviting the council to match government’s contribution to ensure the full cost of the service is covered. I am pleased to inform the House that the Lord Mayor, Gary Lambert, wrote to me advising that the funding for the 2007-08 cruising season was approved at their council meeting on 25 September 2007.
Free shuttles to the city for this year will be part of a smooth transition to presenting our new cruise terminal, which will be ready in time for the commencement of the 2008-09 cruise season. From the 2008-09 season and beyond, Tourism Top End is currently developing a new program of volunteers and ambassadors that will help direct cruise ship passengers to a range of transport options once they exit the new terminal; options that will include day tour coaches, taxis, private fee shuttles like those offered by Casuarina Square, or use the safe pedestrian access from Fort Hill Wharf via Hughes Street to the city. I thank Tourism Top End for their work on this initiative. For immobile or very elderly passengers alternative transfers will be arranged by the cruise ship companies.
Madam Speaker, I look forward to keeping the House informed on the developments in cruise ship visits and the huge potential we have to see Darwin continue to grow as an important cruising port in Northern Australia.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, it is good news about cruise shipping in the Northern Territory. It is great to see that the large passenger liners are being actively promoted and marketed into the harbour in Darwin, and that negotiations with large cruise companies to bring them into the Territory are continuing. Also, that the smaller cruise ship markets, the niche markets, are being actively promoted. The promotion of Darwin Harbour and the waterfront can only be good for tourism for the Top End, right across the Northern Territory, and the ongoing flow from there into Katherine and Alice Springs,.
Cruise ships appear to be flavour of the month again. The cruise holiday market seems to be booming. It is certainly making a comeback. It is great to see that Darwin Harbour and the Northern Territory is being actively promoted and marketed as a cruise destination. Thank you to the minister for his report.
Reports noted pursuant to standing orders.
RESIDENTIAL PARKS BILL
(Serial 77)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time. This bill is designed to fill a gap in legislation which should have been passed by government years ago. The bill simply states the rights and responsibilities of owners, managers and long-term residents of residential parks.
The Territory once had such legislation when the Residential Tenancies Act was reviewed and, after some lobbying from industry, the sections of the act which related to caravan parks was deleted. The lack of protection for long-term residents of caravan parks was highlighted after a number of complaints were received from residents of the now defunct Sundowner Caravan Park. The first complaints related to a sudden increase in rent without any prior notification. Overnight, the rent was increased by $10 per week for anyone who used their own washing machine. Other complaints related to the lack of notification by the owner of the park that the park was to be sold and that everyone would have to pack up and leave, even though many residents had been there for a long time.
The closure also highlighted problems with subtenancy arrangements where tenants had made private arrangements to sublet their sites without permission or notification from the owners. Another issue that arose is where tenants had built structures that were not approved by the owner of the park nor had building approval. Obviously, there needed to be a set of legislative rules that spelt out the rights and responsibilities of those residents, owners and managers in these parks.
To ascertain what owners, managers and residents thought, a survey was carried out for the majority of caravan parks in the NT. Most of the Northern Territory caravan parks were covered except for Timber Creek, Daly River, Borroloola and Uluru regions. I hand delivered survey forms to the caravan parks and, if there was no one in attendance, left them at the front door. A few were mailed on request. It should be noted that many caravan parks in the Northern Territory do not cater for long-term tenants, so it will probably be the case that owner/managers did not respond because the proposed legislation would not have affected them. However, many of these people running the parks did have caravan park experience so it was thought that they should have the opportunity to respond to the survey.
The survey found strong support for some form of legislative framework to cover people who live permanently in caravan parks as well as park owners. Although there were a few respondents who rejected this notion, the results overwhelmingly from residents and owner/managers supported legislative backing. It is from this survey and from looking at interstate legislation this bill has been developed.
The bill has been divided into a number of sections which are explained in more detail in the accompanying explanatory statement.
Part 1 deals with preliminary matters which includes definitions of terms used throughout the act. Part 2 relates to the Residential Parks Commissioner who is the same person as the Commissioner for Tenancies under the Residential Tenancies Act, and this section sets out his powers and responsibilities. Part 3 sets out matters relating to park rules, the setting up of residents committees, and the amendment of park rules.
Part 4 deals with the formation of residential park agreements. This is a key part of this act when read in relation to Part 5, which deals with the mutual rights and obligations of park owners and residents, and covers such matters as rents and charges, condition reports and bonds, terms of the agreement including the right to possession and quiet enjoyment, the obligations of both the park owner and residents, and rights of entry.
Part 6 relates to assignments and subtenancy agreements. This ensures there is a clear understanding of the rules in relation to assignment and subtenancy and avoids some of the difficulties that occurred at the Sundowner Caravan Park.
Part 7 details when residential park agreements can be terminated either by the park owner or the resident, and includes the role of the Commissioner of Residential Parks. This section also details what are the park owner’s rights in relation to abandoned property, including personal documents, and abandoned dwellings.
Part 8 covers the acquisition of the park or site. This part specifics the right of the new owner when dealing with a resident who has a residential park agreement. Part 9 covers the sale of a dwelling on a site, and makes clear both the residents’ rights and the owners’ rights.
Part 10 outlines dispute resolution proceedings, describing how either an owner or resident may apply to the commissioner where there is a dispute, or a breach of an agreement has occurred.
Part 11 relates to the serving of notices. Part 12 looks at various miscellaneous matters.
Part 13 deals with the Administrator’s powers to make regulations and prescribes what may be in those regulations, and Part 14 covers transitional matters.
Madam Speaker, as I said at the beginning, this bill fills a gap in legislation. It will now state clearly the rights and responsibilities of both residents and owners. It is not designed to hinder the rights of a park owner, but to clarify the rights of the owner whilst, at the same time, recognising that long-term residents also have rights and responsibilities. It is practical legislation designed to cover residential parks that have not been covered by the legislation since 1999 when the Residential Tenancies Act was passed. The act specifically leaves out caravan parks, and it was presumed from statements at that time and more recently, that government intended to introduce legislation to fix this anomaly. It has not done so, hence this legislation.
I hope the government will support this bill. If the government decides it will not support the bill when it comes up for debate next year, I hope it will introduce its own legislation and use some of the details found in this bill, as well as the results from the survey, in developing its own response to this gap in legislation. I note that a previous minister for Justice, Dr Toyne, wrote to me on 27 March 2006, saying that: ‘I can confirm that the issue of caravan parks is currently being examined and may result in law reform at some future stage’. I live in hope that something will happen.
As this bill will not be debated until April next year, there will be ample time for comments from industry and residents and I encourage those comments to come in.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill and the explanatory notes to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
BUSINESS POSTPONED –
Radioactive Waste Facility – Allegations by Members for Barkly and Macdonnell
Radioactive Waste Facility – Allegations by Members for Barkly and Macdonnell
The CLERK: Madam Speaker, I advise that pursuant to Standing Order 107, I received written advice from the Leader of the Opposition postponing the moving of the motion at Notice No 2 until the next General Business Day.
FIREARMS (PAINTBALL) AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 102)
Mr MILLS (Blain)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I withdraw this motion.
Motion agreed to.
BIRTHS, DEATHS AND MARRIAGES REGISTRATION AMENDMENT (KADEN) BILL
(Serial 105)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
At the outset, I wish to acknowledge Fiona and Craig who sit in the gallery on this very important occasion for them. I also acknowledge that, as a result of their courage, there are many across our country who have taken heart in the way that Fiona and Craig have responded to a personal tragedy. This is, until someone steps forward, something that is only whispered about in families. It has been illuminating for me to encounter such courage, but more so to now be a part of conversations - whether I visit family in Western Australia or they come and visit me, or at the markets, or talking to older members of my family. Out come stories of loss that have not been able to be resolved adequately. What is particularly surprising is those who are very old who still carry the unresolved issue of a child born prematurely.
It is not until we encounter it that we are forced to wonder how we respond to this matter. It has caused me to think, as others too who have had the experience of encountering it, that the legal system becomes an immense and distressing challenge and quite incapable, many times, to address matters of this nature. As someone who had been presented with the challenge, it was my resolve to endeavour to find a legislative solution.
At the outset, I have to say that our confidence as a community is largely misplaced when we place it in the legal system as the means of resolving our own personal challenges; that the capacity to resolve difficult issues always remains with the individual concerned, the family that support them and those who think about the matter. Once it falls into the hands of those who look at the rules that have been arrived at to govern our society, it becomes difficult. It is no wonder that it has been described from times past - many, in fact, 1000 years ago - to say that the letter of the law does not produce life. There is life in it, and we need to find the life in the law, to find the way through it so that we can bring resolution, restoration, and healing. We do not find that easily in the law. The law can easily be used to obstruct, block and provide the reasons why we cannot move forward, and then we stand behind it.
What I am proposing is an amendment to the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Bill 2007. I called it the Amendment Bill 2007 or the Kaden bill. I deliberately put the name Kaden in there so that a lost life is given reference and recognition, because the memory does not pass away, but the capacity to have it properly resolved is not easily found, not within Australia.
In a moment, I will go through the mechanics of the bill. I am sure there are going to be responses in time when government comes to attend to this second reading speech. They will surely find technical and legal difficulties - whilst understanding the heart of it - why we cannot perhaps go down this path. Somewhere there will be this argument that no other jurisdiction - which almost poses the suggestion that it is, therefore, impossible. Nothing is impossible, because other jurisdictions in other countries have found solutions to this. If there is a will there is a way.
What is required is a level of leadership, risk taking, challenge, cutting a new path. Why? Because we only have to ask in our own family circles; there are issues like this that have been unresolved. All the care can be provided within a family and all the support can be offered through the hospital system - and I will talk about that in a moment - and still there is the unresolved issue. The core of that is that, from the point of 20 weeks-plus born prematurely, the legal system we have legally and formally recognises a human being; 19 weeks and six days the opposite, not a human being and, therefore, described as hospital waste. That is the harsh reality of this measure. That is the challenge: how do we resolve that? This is the nature of the legal construct that we have. There are arguments and reasons for that. It will be argued that there has to be a cut-off time, but there could well be a way through this, a way to create a solution as other jurisdictions, not in this country, have found.
When Fiona and Craig came to see me only a short time after the loss of Kaden, the first thing they needed was someone to hear them. In one sense, it was unfortunate that that had to be found in my office. I was privileged to be cast in that role at that time, and I continue to honour that. As we all know with some great sadness, because of the legislative construction and the arbitrary determination of when a life is a life and when it is not, the hospital system, in all its grinding busy-ness and heavy workload, made a decision. Actions were influenced by that arbitrary cut-off point, and so they responded in that manner.
Legally and technically you can explain the result, but not in matters like this - not the impact that it has on the mother, whom I still believe, as anyone really would, gave birth and was told by the system: ‘No you have not’. As a result, there was no adequate support offered to the mother at that time. It was the most extraordinary case. I thought at that time: ‘Well, I have been a local member for eight years, I have not heard of this before. Perhaps it is a one-off’. What rocked me was that when this was made public, stories came in from around the country of the same thing; of mothers who had had to endure the indignity of a system that has made an arbitrary judgment as to whether a child is a child.
The first objective that was set - and I am happy to report has largely been achieved thanks to the tenacity of Fiona and Craig - that we felt was the most achievable objective, was to ensure that no other couple going into our hospital system has the same experience as Fiona and Craig. That led to an approach to the hospital board to register the issue, to register the complaint, explain the story, and to seek improvements in the policy of the hospital. It was not an easy matter. Organisational change is not an easy thing to achieve, but it has been achieved.
I understand that a policy - and it was a concession made by the government under the Minister for Health that there would be this opportunity. I acknowledge the Minister for Health’s assistance in allowing this discussion to occur. This discussion took some time and I understand that there were nine drafts before there was a satisfactory resolution as to the shape of the policy. I have a letter from the Royal Darwin Hospital Management Board signed by Colin McDonald, the Chairman. It came some time after the initial complaint was registered with that board. It says that after some time a recommendation will be made to the minister and the Manager of Royal Darwin Hospital under section 23 of the Hospital Management Boards Act. The board has recommended they note the enclosed draft policy and, if they respectively consider it appropriate, to take such steps to see that the draft policy is implemented.
That is an important step, and it was not an easy one to achieve. I acknowledge that important step. It has to be mentioned, though, that it was not really until another mother had a similar experience that was reported, before there was final closure on this aspect of our challenge. We only hope that the courage shown by Fiona and Craig and the account of another mother, and others who have spoken, have brought about organisational change.
I acknowledge it is very difficult for those who are working in the hospital system, but being difficult is no excuse for this level of hurt being incurred by a mother. I only trust that this step has now advanced to the stage where there will be better systems, there will be appropriate resourcing. I only had to look around at other hospitals to find that there was the capacity of other places to respond in a caring way. I say good on Fiona and Craig for persevering with this. I thank the minister and those under the minister for their efforts in bringing this part of this challenge to a close. We will continue to watch.
We go to the next challenge, and this one is seriously a challenge. If it is difficult to bring about organisational change within a hospital system. It is indicated in a letter from the chairman of the management board that these policies should be reflected through right across the Northern Territory, and so it should be. If it is difficult to achieve this level of change within an organisation such as a health system, how much more difficult is it to change the way we respond legislatively to these matters? Sitting underneath are a number of moral and ethical issues. I ask members to weigh these carefully and calmly in the presence of the issue itself: in the knowledge of human life as it is measured in the current system, the grief that is incurred by a mother who finds that our system says there is an arbitrary determination.
The bottom of this is formal recognition, the closure, the sense that a birth did occur, is legislatively backed, and in substance. That has many flow-on consequences. That is the issue. How can this be provided though? I know it will be argued there has to be a cut-off period and, in many senses, there needs to be. However, can a means be found whereby someone who chooses to have the premature birth properly recognised, if they see that it is important to them? That issue of choice - can they do that if they want that? If they have seen the foetus that is fully formed, can they ask for that to be properly recognised as a birth and a death?
My family is just going through, as they always seem to be going through, the family tree; it is growing ever larger, branches here and branches there. However, if there has been no birth, there has been no death formally, legally recognised. Any of the countless people across the country who have given birth prematurely will never have any of these children in their family tree legally and formally recognised. Is there a way that that can occur?
I propose a solution. I am pleased to report that there are other members in other parliaments who have heard what has happened in the Territory, have taken courage from Fiona and Craig, have heard the attempt at describing a way forward, and are also considering this. I would suggest, to be quite pragmatic, that it is going to be an extended discussion that we need to have within our community and across the country.
It rests on the issue of choice. Can we provide that mother who has given birth prematurely to a child before 20 weeks the choice? Can we give the Attorney-General the authority to issue a birth certificate and a death certificate? Can we? Can we do that? We are in a Legislative Assembly; we can legislate. If there are problems with this, which, of course, there are challenges that will be posed as there always are, there is nothing cut and dried about a legal argument, then perhaps still we could find a way through it. If there is a will, a way can be found. If there is no will, you will find a multitude of reasons why it cannot be achieved. That is a fact: if you have the will you can find the solution, and here it is.
Here is what I propose to be a solution. I am mindful of what I have just said, and I am prepared for it, but I will not be leaving this area. As I offer myself to my community at the next Territory election, I will continue to serve if that community chooses to have me stay in this Chamber. This issue will not go away if it is not responded to in a way that gives some constructive response, and opportunities for progress to be made. I will continue with it, among other things.
At the moment, there is no ability to make a registration - no ability whatsoever. I will say though, that the second offer that was made - and I will have to acknowledge that it is a response that has some merit; that the process that led to the changes in the policy ought to have been fully implemented and properly resourced. The other one was the offer of a commemorative certificate. I acknowledge the gesture and that that is fine. However, there still remains the unresolved grief resulting from the non-recognition. A commemorative certificate still does not capture the essence of saying ‘this is a human being born just like every one of us’. This one also died, so there is no legal birth certificate or death certificate. I do acknowledge the commemorative certificate, but it does not address the core issue here. That rests on the dignity of human life and the recognition of life. Anyone who has seen the letter that Fiona has sent will find it very difficult to say that that is not a human being. However, our legislation says that.
The events with the birth and the death of Kaden have shown how such a line in the sand – 20 weeks being set in concrete – can be inappropriate and quite hurtful to the family involved. This bill provides the opportunity, following the completion of certain paperwork by medical professionals and upon application within 60 days to the minister, for the birth and the death of a sub-20-week foetus to be formally recognised.
We need to acknowledge now, honourable members, that I made an attempt to bring this bill forward on urgency some time ago. The reason for that was that would have allowed me to debate this today, and for us, as a Chamber, to debate it today. Because it could not be brought on, as urgency was denied, then this bill, if successful ultimately, will not apply to Fiona and Craig because of the 60 days. It has been 199 days since Fiona gave birth. The result of not permitting urgency at that time is that this matter could not be brought to resolution in this Chamber today. This is a second reading speech which means it will sit on the Table for us to discuss at another time.
Fiona and Craig know this, as others do. However, the level of support indicates that people want this to continue for others. The bill extends no further than providing the possibility – an important point; it extends no further than providing the possibility. The bill sets two levels of application. If the miscarriage occurs under supervised care in the hospital, then the application by the parent needs to contain paperwork from the hospital certifying the miscarriage. If the miscarriage occurs outside of supervised medical care – let us say at home - then the medical professional will not only have to complete the certification but will also have to provide further documentation supporting the application, as another level that is required if miscarriage occurs at home. In both of these instances, the parents will need to make such an application within 60 days of the miscarriage.
It is an important point on the issue of choice; the onus rests on the parent - the choice of the parent. No one is compelling them; it is providing them with the choice, the opportunity to do so. I know that there would be many who would not take up the choice; they want to leave it be. However, what about those who want that choice? We respect the choice of others in these sorts of matters. We acknowledge the choice of others in these matters, those who make a choice concerning a life. However, what about those who have no choice? Can we not give them a choice? That is what this is about: choice. Authority and power determined and arrived at by proper consideration by members of a Legislative Assembly.
The completed application’s supporting documentation is to be provided to the Attorney-General for good reason. The Attorney-General could seek advice from the Chief Medical Officer in respect to the application for a decision – notice, choice and decision. Individual choice and a decision - power resting within the hands of people to make choices and to have decisions made; people who have been elected to represent and to make hard decisions. The decision to register the birth and death then rests with the Attorney-General.
I am not uncomfortable with the notion that we, being elected, need to carry a certain burden of responsibility and the capacity to make difficult decisions. These are difficult decisions, and rather than weigh them legislatively, they need to be weighed here. We will not be here forever in this Chamber and we can weigh these decisions, balance them and make a decision on matters such as this. Ultimately, someone makes a decision, but do we offload the decision to systems and organisations, committees and so on? I believe there is more decision-making in here on difficult things.
I stated before that this process means that parents need to choose whether they wish to seek registration. I say again, I do not believe everyone would; for those who have experienced this it would mean the world. The minister then chooses whether registration is appropriate and should be granted. This legislation goes no further than this and effects no other entitlements or activities. There are other things that could be drawn in this: yes, but what about this, what about that? A line needs to be drawn in the sand but it rests on this issue: can a mother choose if it is before 20 weeks? I would suggest it is appropriate that it is in the third trimester when the foetus is fully formed. Who is to say that is not a child? The decision to have it formally and legally recognised is the choice that a mother, if this bill is supported, can have supported.
As this is a private member’s bill, I urge members to support the bill. If you choose not to support this bill, I urge you to seek alternatives, other ways of approaching this. I would find it a spur to continue on if the response is ‘yes, but’. Let us see if we can find alternatives. The alternative that has been provided, a commemorative certificate, does not address the deeper issue.
In closing, I acknowledge, again, the leadership and courage shown by Fiona and Craig. I also acknowledge those who work in our hospital system, who have responded to this matter, made the time to see Craig and Fiona, shown that kindness, and have shown support. It is undoubtedly a difficult matter. It would be nice if there were no difficult matters to attend to. Sadly, it is a reality and the lot falls upon us at this time to weigh this and to consider it. I urge honourable members to support the bill. I say again, if not, please offer alternatives to amend the process. At the very least, support the intention of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Amendment (Kaden) Bill 2007.
Debate adjourned.
ELECTORAL AMENDMENT BILL (No 2)
(Serial 117)
(Serial 117)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Electoral Act in two areas: first, to allow for ballot paper position draws to be conducted at sites determined by the Electoral Commission; and second, to equalise the threshold for which election candidates can accept anonymous gifts.
As a small jurisdiction, Northern Territory politicians and election candidates are probably more open to scrutiny than their interstate counterparts. People are much more likely to see a Territory politician out and about than they would a federal or state minister. They rub shoulders with politicians in the streets, in the markets, stop and talk to us in the mall, and even consider throwing their hats in the ring as a candidate. It is important that our electoral system matches this openness by encouraging people to participate as much as possible, and the amendments in this bill reflect that openness.
I will now turn to the details of the bill. These are commonsense amendments. The first part amends the site where the Electoral Commission can conduct the draw for candidates’ positions on a ballot paper. At the moment, the Electoral Act requires the Electoral Commission to undertake this draw in their Darwin office. While this may be appropriate for Top End seats, it discriminates against electorates outside Darwin. Constituents of that electorate, local media and even the candidates have to travel to Darwin if they wish to be present at the draw. The recent by-election in Greatorex was a classic example. The draws on the ballot paper were done in Darwin whereas commonsense would say they should have been done in Alice Springs. I have a long history of trying to pull down the Berrimah Line. Conducting non-Darwin electoral draws in Darwin is simply unfair and discourages people in regions from participating in this important part of the electoral process.
I am very pleased to see the Electoral Commission agrees with me. In their recent report on the 2005 General Election, the Commission wrote on page 36:
- Restricting the draws to the office in Darwin effectively means that the event cannot commence until all nominations are cleared and with the inevitable late rush this can be expected to delay proceedings. Confining the draw to Darwin also means that many candidates, media representatives and interested parties based regionally cannot attend and it makes for a long, drawn out process. This would not be the case if separate draws were conducted at the Commission’s regional offices.
- It is recommended that the Electoral Act be amended to allow the draw for positions on the ballot paper to be conducted at sites determined by the Electoral Commissioner.
My amendment simply implements this recommendation by allowing the Electoral Commission to choose the site of the draw most suitable to the electorate involved; a commonsense amendment and one members should be able to support.
The second part of the bill refers to the threshold amount of gifts that can be given anonymously to candidates during an election. This bill makes changes to the monetary amount in three sections of the act: sections 191, 193 and 197. At the moment, section 191 requires a candidate’s reporting agent to provide the Electoral Commission with details of gifts given to a candidate in an election. This information must include the name and address of each donor, along with other details of the gift. However, the name and address, date and amount is not required if the total amount of their gift, or gifts if they have made more than one to the same candidate, is less than $200.
Section 193 concerns a donor who makes the gift to a candidate in an election. If the total amount of their gift or gifts is $200 or more, they must inform the Electoral Commission of their name, address, amount of the gift and date it was gifted. Section 197 concerns registered parties or candidates receiving the anonymous gifts. For registered parties - and this is where it seems unfair - they must not accept a gift to the value of $1000 or more unless the receiver knows the name and address of the donor. For candidates not with registered parties, the same information is required, except the prescribed amount is far less, $200. So these three sections are saying that only anonymous gifts of less than $200 can be given to a non-party candidate. For all these sections, the bill increases the amount to $1000, which is the same as registered party candidates.
At the moment, the act discriminates against non-party candidates. Registered parties, large or small, do have substantial resources, particularly those which federal affiliations. Why should parties be able to receive anonymous gifts up to $1000 when Independents or non-party candidates can only accept gifts anonymously if they are less than $200? Independents play a vital part in a political system. I will say that again so you all hear it: Independents play a vital part in our political system. There are numerous examples of legislation that the government has implemented on the bills or policies that I have proposed, or the other Independent member in this House has proposed. Just yesterday, for instance, we saw the government pass the Bail Amendment Act which was based on a bill that I had introduced previously.
We also have confirmation from Peter Murphy, an advisor for the CLP government, who said recently on Stateline: ‘I think the era of Independent politicians in the Territory has really arrived. You have Loraine Braham and Gerry Wood in the Top End and, between the two of them, they are far more effective than the official opposition, the CLP’. Madam Speaker, you could not get a finer endorsement.
Mr Henderson: Can you say that again, I missed that? Can you read that quote again?
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mrs BRAHAM: Would you like me to read that again? ‘I think the era of Independent politicians in the Territory has really arrived. You have Loraine Braham and Gerry Wood in the Top End and, between the two of them, they are far more effective than the official opposition, the CLP’. Isn’t that a fine endorsement?
As further support to these amendments, the federal government recently changed the Commonwealth Electoral Act to increase the disclosure threshold from $1500 to $10 000. I am certainly not suggesting the higher amount, but it does show there are moves to increase the threshold of anonymous donations. Again, I refer to the Electoral Commission’s report, which mentioned these changes to the Commonwealth legislation and recommended amendment to the Financial Disclosure Provisions. I quote the report on page 38:
- Any new customised arrangements … should draw consistent information from both endorsed and unendorsed candidates.
All I am asking is that non-party candidates be subject to the same conditions and be given the same rights as those from registered parties.
Our nation takes pride in our democratic ideals. It is important that our electoral processes allow the public every opportunity to participate. This may be standing as a candidate, or providing financial assistance to someone they support as a candidate. Sometimes, the process can frustrate this participation. Drawing ballot positions thousands of kilometres away can be frustrating to locals. Not being able to give a substantial anonymous donation can be another. The amendments in this bill aim to overcome this frustration by very simple changes that do not undermine or threaten the electoral process. Indeed, as the independent Electoral Commission recommendations suggest, these simple changes aim to make the process equitable for everyone.
I have also introduced changes and will be debating another amendment concerning the Financial Disclosure Provisions requiring party returns to be categorised in the same way as required to be submitted by unendorsed candidates. These changes complement each other in ensuring equity in the Northern Territory’s Electoral Act and system.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members, and I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Parliamentary Proceedings - Broadcast
Parliamentary Proceedings - Broadcast
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move - That this parliament end its current restrictions on freedom of the media and open up its processes so as to provide unfettered public scrutiny by amending standing orders to allow television, radio and Internet providers to record and rebroadcast all public parliamentary proceedings.
The motion is short and members will not at all be surprised to know that the points I make in support of it will be relatively brief. One does not need to go on when we have a straightforward motion to debate.
The bottom line is this: other parliaments in this country provide for extensive broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings. In the Northern Territory, we have a situation where television cameras can come in here every day at 2 pm and then pack up at 3 pm. They are unable to broadcast any other part of this parliament. I know that there have been, under you leadership I believe, Madam Speaker, improvements made to Internet access. I know we have a radio broadcast during Question Time as well. However, is it not curious that the people who sit in this place who would regard themselves, I am sure, as small ‘d’ democrats cannot bring themselves, or are unable to get to the point where they would support extensive and broader broadcasting of the proceedings of this parliament?
As I said in radio interviews last night, you cannot, on the one hand, say as a politician that what happens in the parliament is incredibly important - and I think each and every one of us (a) holds that view, and (b) expresses that view to a number of other people - you cannot hold that view and then say: ‘But we are only going to allow broadcasting of a very small part of it’.
The parliament is open to the people, and how wonderful it is to see some people here in the parliament. We do not always have people in the parliament. My parliamentary colleagues and I often look up see empty galleries - almost at any time day or night. I do not, for a moment, accept that every person in the Northern Territory is as interested in politics or the political process as the people who sit in this Chamber or, indeed, work in this building.
However, is it not desirable that we extend the broadcasting to enable people the opportunity to see more of us? There are robust debates in this place. Territorians may wish to see footage and hear the contents of debates. What we are increasingly seeing is the orchestration of Question Time in which government ministers, for the most part, go out of their way not to answer questions, and to ask themselves dorothy dixers so that they can peddle the party line. That is, unfortunately, Territory politics at present.
I believe Territorians would be interested to see my colleague, the member for Blain, give his heartfelt and emotional speech in relation to the Kaden bill which he introduced only 20 minutes ago. I believe Territorians would be very interested to see and hear that as it occurs. I am not sure that Question Time is the best we can do for young people who see politicians often yelling at each other on television sets during Question Time. When those young people go to school their teachers probably say to them: ‘Do not yell at each other’. Yet, politicians yell at each other a lot of the time in this very building during Question Time. That is what is broadcast to our fellow Territorians.
I think we, the parliament of the Northern Territory, can do better. We should modernise. We should bring ourselves into the 21st century and allow and encourage maximum access. Politicians always talk about ‘accountability and transparency’ - words found in political handbook 101. Those words are important. We should not hide from broadcasts in any form; we should be as open as possible. Literally opening the doors to the building is significant but, because I am an eternal optimist, I think we can do better. The time has come for Territorians to expect that we do better. This is not our building. It is the building of the people of the Northern Territory, and what a fine building it is, and what important work is done in this building.
How unfortunate it is that our fellow Territorians only see that snapshot that occurs between 2 pm and 3 pm, and then we all hear the click of the button at one minute to three and the tapes rewinding and the camera people start to pack up their stuff, Question Time finishes, and we all go back to debating issues. Question Time is not a debate. Question Time is predominantly, under this government, an opportunity for government members to showcase themselves.
I am a strong believer in the democratic process. I am aspirational when it comes to my fellow Territorians and what I believe is their desire to engage with the political process. We as a parliament will serve them well, and it is an important symbolic message in any event, if we as a parliament say, all right, we are going to extend broadcasting.
In reply, and I may be doing him a disservice, but I expect the Leader of Government Business to say: ‘We have a committee for this, and the committee should discuss it’. Our parliamentary committees are confidential. I would like to hear, because this is a House of debate, the views of many people on the other side. I am sure people sitting in the gallery and people who may even be listening on the internal government broadcast - parliament is broadcast within the public service - and others would like to hear from members on the other side as to their views about opening up the parliament and improving the way we, as a group, communicate with our fellow Territorians.
Sure, this could be on an agenda for the Standing Orders Committee, but there is certainly nothing wrong or objectionable in raising it the way we do on this, the opposition’s General Business Day. Sadly, it is forgotten regularly in this place, but we should not forget that this is a House of debate. I hope that this is debated. I look forward to the response from government. I note, Madam Speaker, you have made comments this morning, and I do not propose to go into them as a courtesy to you. The government, by dint of its numbers, will determine whether this motion succeeds or fails. Please accept this in the spirit in which it is intended.
There is one final point and that is scrutiny. Transparency and accountability are words found in political handbook 101. Scrutiny is often another word. I suggest both sides of politics in this Chamber and, indeed others, talk, I am sure, about the need to be scrutinised. What an effective way to be scrutinised by allowing our fellow Territorians the opportunity to see footage and to hear what goes on in this Chamber and have the opportunity to re-broadcast what goes on, throughout the Northern Territory.
Citizens of the Northern Territory get the politicians they deserve. We have an obligation to encourage them to learn more about the political process, for those who are interested, and to encourage them to scrutinise us. I say that not in relation to a party-party suggestion, but us as politicians. There are 25 of us who serve in this Chamber and, notwithstanding our political differences, I have no doubt that each and every person sitting here takes their role very seriously indeed. There is a difference between we, as a group, saying we take our responsibility seriously, but not taking that further by saying we will, as a group, allow ourselves to be scrutinised in the best way possible - ways that complement what we already have. We should be encouraging further scrutiny of us as a group and, indeed, it follows as individuals, then it gets into a party-party contest.
This is about democracy. It is about ensuring that what goes on here is seen and heard. Although there are differences in other jurisdictions, broadcasting is something that other jurisdictions have looked at in the past. We can do better in encouraging people to join the political process. I look forward to hearing the government’s comments. I hope that there are more speakers than just the Leader of Government Business. I feel certain that others will hope there are more speakers as well. Madam Speaker, I commend the motion.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I join the Leader of the Opposition in welcoming the public to Parliament House for what is an interesting and important debate. It is good to see members of the public here to see the Northern Territory parliament in action.
The Leader of the Opposition quite rightly said the parliament should be open to the people and we, as members of parliament, should be and are accountable to the people we represent. It is interesting that this motion has come on today. The Leader of the Opposition is always good with the theatrics of debate and putting a particular point of view. However, this issue was not just an issue for the opposition and the Leader of the Opposition until the Northern Territory Press Club had a letter published in the NT News on Saturday. This is an opposition …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: … that is so bereft of ideas, Madam Speaker …
Ms Carney interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: ... so bereft of ideas and policy that the parliamentary agenda is, to a large part, set by the headlines in the Northern Territory News and, in this case, a letter from the Northern Territory Press Club to the Northern Territory News.
Okay, the Leader of the Opposition has brought a motion to this parliament as a result of reading a letter in the NT News. It certainly was not an issue for the opposition prior to that, otherwise we would have had many debates, over many years. So bereft of policy are they, they wait until the paper is published to decide what they are going to run on any given day.
The Leader of the Opposition and members opposite are chameleons on this subject. They are absolute chameleons. Depending on which side of the Chamber they sit determines the colour and the position that they have on this debate. Absolute chameleons. The Leader of the Opposition would have much more credibility in the position that she just put - and I will go to the points of substance in a minute - if she stood up and said: ‘We support this and in supporting this, I have to admit, and my party admits, that the position that we had in government for 27 years was wrong …
Ms Carney interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, Leader of the Opposition!
Mr HENDERSON: … when there was no democracy in terms of opening the parliament up …
Ms Carney: No democracy.
Mr HENDERSON: … to bringing the cameras into parliament. She talked about - I made some notes - the orchestration of Question Time, and predominantly a showcase Question Time, a showcase for government ministers to strut their stuff. Well, there is a lot less strutting of stuff going on under this Labor administration than under CLP administrations. On average, we have more than doubled the number of questions that are asked and answered in Question Time in the eight years that we have been in government. That is purely a mathematical exercise. I am sure if we asked the Table Office to do some research it would show demonstrably that Question Time is much more accountable. Ministers are much more accountable today in terms of the number of questions without notice that get answered in this House than in the halcyon days of the CLP.
However, let us get back to the substance of the motion, and let us deal with the issues that the Leader of the Opposition raised.
We do have television cameras in here for Question Time. The reality is, as technology evolves - and I do not think the Leader of the Opposition is aware of this, but under your own determination at the beginning of the 2006 calendar year, parliament and debates are screened over the Internet. You can sit in Timbuktu, Lisbon, Wadeye, downtown Malak or Karama, or in Leningrad, and you can actually hear, if you want to, the Leader of the Opposition and I debating this motion today. To say that people of the Territory do not and cannot access broadcasting of parliament is wrong ...
Ms Carney: I did not say that.
Mr HENDERSON: You did, and I have the notes. You talked about the public service can hear the broadcast of parliament. Those were your words, Leader of the Opposition …
Ms Carney: It is also what ...
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms Carney: I said what Madam Speaker had done, you dill.
Mr HENDERSON: I am not sensitive, but I am sensitive for the parliament, and I ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, Leader of the Opposition you will withdraw!
Ms CARNEY: I withdraw the word dill, Madam Speaker …
Mr Henderson: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Ms CARNEY: … if you are so offended by it.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, order!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr HENDERSON: It does not offend me, Madam Speaker, but I think it offends the dignity of parliament.
We can all read the transcript. The Leader of the Opposition was trying to paint a case that parliament was not broadcast. In fact, it is. It is broadcast, it is streamed over the Internet. With the advent of the digital recording of everything that is said in this House with Hansard - I am not sure what it is, but the full Hansard transcript of debates in this House are up on the Internet within two or three hours of the Assembly rising each day. The Hansard people do a wonderful job. So, for the Leader of the Opposition to paint a picture that somehow this government, this oppressive Labor government, is trying to close down public access to debates in this parliament, and access to the accountability of members of parliament, is patently wrong. I urge the Leader of the Opposition to go to the Department of Legislative Assembly’s website and click on the icon that allows for the streaming of the parliamentary broadcast.
Madam Speaker, I propose to move an amendment to the Leader of the Opposition’s motion. The amendment will be, in part, to refer this issue to the Standing Orders Committee. I advise people in the gallery, and people listening over the Internet - if there are many people listening over the Internet to debate - the reason why we have to refer this issue to the Standing Orders Committee is because the issues around the broadcasting of parliament are a standing order of this parliament. The only way that standing orders can be amended is as a result of a motion to the parliament to amend the standing orders. It is totally appropriate that the Standing Orders Committee, which the opposition and Independents participate in, considers this issue and reports to parliament the recommendations of the Standing Orders Committee.
The Leader of the Opposition said that is a terrible process because parliamentary committees are confidential. It is the first time I have heard her deride committee proceedings. Debate within the parliamentary committee is confidential, but the report the committee publishes is not confidential; it is a public document. If members on that committee wish to dissent from any of the recommendations in the report, they can table a dissenting document that is a public document and open for debate in this parliament. Therefore, it is not some confidential, secret parliamentarians’ process; it is an open process. If individual members or party members on that committee do not agree with the recommendations of the majority, they can have a dissenting statement.
In essence, as Leader of Government Business, and the members of this side of the House, we are totally open for the Standing Orders Committee to consider the issues raised.
Madam Speaker, I formally move an amendment now that is a tad lengthy, but will be circulated to members. I move that all words after ‘that’ be omitted and insert in their stead:
The Assembly:
1. notes that after 27 years of CLP in 2001 there was no:
(a) television access to Question Time by media;
(g) introduced the modern budgetary transparency obligations on the government.
3. notes that in recent times technological capacities have improved to enable new functions to be introduced including the streaming of Hansard on the Internet; and
(a) the modern capabilities available to the parliament;
media outlets;
In speaking to the amendment, I am sure that all honourable members of this House would agree that a considered process in determining further evolution of how we provide access to the people of the Northern Territory to their parliament is totally appropriate. It is not just at the whim without a full consideration of a range of issues. That is why we have the Standing Orders Committee.
I also point out to the Leader of the Opposition that this is an issue that all parliaments are coming to grips with. Different parliaments are at different stages as to what is broadcast, how it is broadcast, and standing orders for allowing proceedings to be distributed, disseminated and broadcast through television and other media.
It is not as if we can pick up off the shelf a comprehensive set of standing orders that are consistent with modern parliamentary practice. Every jurisdiction is evolving due to individual circumstances. I would like to point out a quick assessment of what other parliaments are doing around Australia, given what we are doing here. I am advised that in the parliaments of South Australia and Tasmania television cameras are not allowed in to directly broadcast Question Time; there is no Internet streaming; and essentially they are moving to look at ‘where to from here’.
In the Northern Territory, at the moment for people who are really interested, if they cannot listen to a debate, and they want to know what their local member of parliament has said in contribution to any debate in this House, the fact is that within two hours of words being spoken in this Chamber, people can hop on to the Internet, go to the Hansard and read exactly what the member for Wanguri said in relation to this motion.
That is technology that was not even contemplated as much as 10 or 15 years ago. When I entered parliament in 1999, I do not think Hansard was up on the Internet, and members had an allowance - I think each member was allowed eight copies of the hard copy Hansard and we would identify eight people in our constituency or our local branch who were interested in Hansard and the parliament. We would mail big books to them that they would get some three months after the debate had actually occurred in the House. That is how quickly times have moved in making parliament accountable and open to the people of the Northern Territory whom we service. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition; we do serve very humbly and with a great deal of pride in the representation of our electorates that we all perform. For the Leader of the Opposition to try to paint a picture that somehow it is secret pollies business and nobody can get access to it, is patently wrong.
I commend the amended motion to the House, which, quite appropriately, asks for the Standing Orders Committee to consider these issues in detail. We would certainly look to take submissions from members of the public and media regarding the terms of reference. We will consider all of the issues as per the reference to the Standing Orders Committee and report to this House with recommendations. The House then has its own destiny in its own hands. If members of the opposition or Independents do not agree with the majority recommendations in the report, they can move a dissenting report and put their own motions to the House in the future.
I commend the amended motion. I thank the Press Club of the Northern Territory for putting this issue on the agenda. If they had not put it on the agenda we would not be debating it today.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, it was interesting to hear the Leader of Government Business think that this was just dreamed up last Friday. He forgets that we only have General Business Day every three months or so. We do have things in the pipeline that we want to bring up and discuss. For the Leader of Government Business to suggest that it was a whim of last night or the night before is a little rich ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mrs MILLER: Madam Speaker, this government has talked about being open and accountable ever since 2001 - open and accountable ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mrs MILLER: They are a bit titchy already and I have not even started.
We are all very privileged to be in this House. We have been elected by the constituents in our own electorates to represent them and their needs to the best of our ability. I do not see a problem in us coming into this House and having a broadcast at any time. What do we have to hide? I watch the theatrics that go on here in Question Time and, let us face it, some days it is a darn circus. It really is a circus. It is almost like …
Mr Kiely: We know who the clown is.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mrs MILLER: The member for Sanderson likes to have his little say so he gets his name or his face on the television. Some of the stuff that happens here at Question Time is just inexcusable. Do you know why it happens? Because the cameras are in here. That is why people behave the way they do. I have watched it. There are some members across the Chamber from me who do not smile unless there are cameras in here. It is really quite entertaining. I noticed it the first few weeks I was sitting in this parliament and I wondered what the heck was going. Why are they smiling? I suddenly realised there were cameras on them.
I would like to see cameras in this House at any time there is interesting debate. That would be useful for our constituents to hear or see. The minister said that there is plenty of broadcasting through the Internet. Not everyone has the Internet. Public servants do, our electorate officers do, and many people have access to the Internet. But I want people to think about the elderly people in our electorates who do not have the Internet and have no desire to have it.
I will use this as an example. One dear lady in my constituency always refers to herself as my ‘oldest constituent’ when she rings me. It is 88-year-old Bonnie Stevens. Dear Bonnie in Katherine. Bonnie is an avid listener of parliament. She loves to listen to the federal parliament and she has always done so. I have to say I could not think of anything less interesting to be listening to all the time, but Bonnie does and there must be hundreds of others out there in the same situation. If she could see this on television, she would definitely watch it. I do not see any reason why television should be prevented from broadcasting live inside this Chamber to our constituents and those who choose to sit in front of a television to watch us ...
Ms Carney: And rebroadcast it.
Mrs MILLER: And rebroadcast it, absolutely. She listens to the radio. She certainly would not know how to turn on a computer and would not know how to trawl the Net to find Hansard. For the Leader of Government Business to say that within two hours it is on the Internet that is not meeting the needs of many of our loyal supporters in the community.
I will go back to Question Time again. The minute those cameras are here, it is a showcase for government. I love it - a question without notice - hang on! Whoever is going to respond to it has to pick up the written response because it is not without notice. That is a big farce. It is a farce and it shows up when people are fossicking around looking for their question without notice and looking for their response without notice, which they just happen to have sitting there: so and so was going to ask that question and here is the answer.
Why can we not have broadcasting of our debates within this Chamber for public scrutiny? Why can’t we? This morning was a perfect example of something that is highly emotive, but I can assure you that there are many people across the Northern Territory who would relate to the debate by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition this morning. There would be not too many people sitting in this House who have not been affected in some way by the same issues that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition raised this morning. It is important for us to show our constituents that we are open and accountable, and that we are accessible to the people of the Northern Territory.
One of the really interesting things is the hypocrisy once people move from this side of the House to that side of the House and vice versa. I heard the Leader of Government Business talk about all the wonderful things that the Labor government has done since they came to power in 2001. It is interesting that, in 1997, when the Chief Minister was sitting on this side of the House, she had a different opinion. I will quote the Chief Minister, as the Leader of the Opposition, on 26 November 1997, from an adjournment debate:
- I think that the member for Arafura articulated some very interesting points about the election campaign, and I think it would reward the Chief Minister to read them again.
She continued:
- I want to revisit a point we were discussing this morning. There was a strange reluctance by the government to give television and radio access to the actuality of parliament. I find that extraordinary. I look at other parliaments where that actuality is available. There seems to be a strange coyness in the ministry, or maybe it is from the Chief Minister, about appearing in the parliament on television. It is a great frustration for journalists who want to report accurately what has happened in parliament. There is nothing as accurate as being able to take those words as they are heard in parliament.
That was when the Chief Minister was the Leader of Opposition. Also, going back to 1997 - beg my pardon, Madam Speaker, she was not the Leader of the Opposition at the time; she was a member of the opposition. The Leader of the Opposition, that was the former member for Barkly, on that same day talked about current broadcasting of additional answers to questions. She moved that:
- … this Assembly rescinds the resolutions of 11 October 1983 and 12 November 1985 and, from the first sitting day of 1998, authorises live broadcasts and rebroadcasts of the proceedings and excerpts of proceedings of the Legislative Assembly, including the adjournment debate, in accordance with the practice adopted by the House of Representatives.
It appears to me that when you are in government you get a little titchy about having broadcasts within this Assembly and, when you are in opposition, you can see the benefit of it. That is how it would appear to me, Madam Speaker, so I find it really interesting that there is a reluctance of government looking at live broadcasting within this building.
I believe with the theatrics, let us face it, as the Leader of the Opposition said, it is a very robust House of debate. That is a nice polite word. Sometimes I think it gets a little too passionate and uncontrollable in the debate. I try to remind myself before I open my mouth that as I stand in this House to represent people who have elected me, I do not say things that I would not like my grandchildren to be sitting in the gallery and listening to me say. Morally, we should be thinking along the lines of our children and our grandchildren. If we do not want them to hear us behaving in the manner that we do in this House, we should try to visualise them sitting up there and listening to us. It is extremely difficult to behave in an unruly manner in this place, and then walk out and say to our children: ‘Don’t do as I do, do as I say’. We need to be setting an example here.
One of the things we need to be doing is encouraging young people to become interested in the process of this Assembly and the way we perform in here. Having live broadcasts of our debates, and of adjournments, where they can see us in a different aspect rather than Question Time, I believe is extremely important. For government to say that we do not need to have television here during important debates is wrong. I believe we are preventing an opportunity for younger people to see how debate is carried out on developing legislation which, of course, determines how they behave and how they live in the Northern Territory.
I believe that scrutiny and democracy - all of those things - should be emanating from this Assembly. We should be accountable to our constituents. It is also interesting that the opposition brought forward a code of conduct. Anything we do in opposition, of course, is seen as being not worthy of too much discussion. It is looked upon with disgust at most times. However, we brought forward a code of conduct which government opposed, saying they would bring it in when they won. Where is their code of conduct? It is nowhere to be seen. The opposition brought forward whistleblowers’ protection legislation which was opposed by the government, saying something will come in the future - we have seen nothing. The opposition has worked hard to get accountability and to lift standards in this Chamber in regards to scrutiny. Therefore, to suggest what we have introduced today is a frolic from nowhere is without substance.
Madam Speaker, there are things that the opposition is doing which we would like to have seen broadcast. There must be a reason why government is saying: ‘No, we do not particularly like having television cameras in the Assembly’. That must be the reason why they have introduced this raft of amendments which I will leave for the Leader of the Opposition to respond to. Of course, everybody will be looking at the time. I have much more to say on this subject but I need to talk about the amended motion which is likely to take a lot of time because there is a page of it. Maybe we should do this after lunch? Is it a convenient time?
Madam SPEAKER: Would you like to continue your remarks after the luncheon adjournment?
Mrs MILLER: Yes, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: I will note that.
Debate suspended.
MOTION
Parliamentary Proceedings - Broadcast
Parliamentary Proceedings - Broadcast
Continued from earlier this day.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I am a pretty reasonable woman and, despite it being back to the bad old days of the Martin Labor government amending and completely turning motions on their heads because it does not suit them, turning motions away from raising issues about the Martin government’s failures, to look back to things you want to celebrate, I recognise that changes were needed and that some of those brought about by Labor were good. However, it does not stop here.
I am speaking to the amendments now. I will go through the points. Paragraph 1(a) regarding television access to Question Time by the media: yes, that is a good thing that the Labor government has brought in, but there should be more television during debate and adjournments, and that is why we put the motion this morning.
Paragraph 1(b) was the Estimates Committee process. The idea of having estimates to scrutinise departments is a very good idea, but it could be more open and accountable. Each year, at the end of the estimates process we talk about this. We have suggested changes to ensure reduced hours for public servants having to sit there from 8.30 am until 11.30 pm, and lengthening the days of the committee sitting. That was amongst a raft of other recommendations that we have proposed over time. Yes, the Estimates Committee is a great idea, but it certainly needs review.
Paragraph 1(c) was freedom of information. Having seen the paperwork that comes out of FOI requests, the FOI laws are a bit of a token effort. They are daunting in the length of time taken to process these requests. How much, minister, does it cost for each request? People are certainly not encouraged to apply for freedom of information.
Paragraph 1(d) in your amendment was resources for Independent members of the Legislative Assembly. I welcome that; it is fantastic. The Independent members certainly need to have resources available to them in their research and preparation, and I certainly welcome that.
Provision of explanatory materials, which is paragraph 1(e), is also really good. It helps us to understand, without going to lengthy briefings, the intent of the legislation, and it gives us an opportunity to be able to question before the legislation is presented to the House.
Paragraph 1(f) was to require government to provide accurate and transparent budget papers. This was listed in the amendments to our motion, and it was saying that it was implemented by Labor after they came into government in 2001. Madam Speaker, that is offensive. The Leader of Government Business was suggesting that the CLP, when in government, provided 27 years of inaccurate budget papers. That is not only very offensive, but it is slanderous.
Paragraph 1(g) was, ‘independent body to administer Territory elections’. Leader of Government Business, were you suggesting that there were issues untoward in previous elections, and did you have an issue when you were elected to parliament? I do not think so. I think you were happy to be here.
Madam Speaker, paragraph 2(f) of the amendment which notes what the Labor government has implemented since 2001, has, ‘introduced regional sittings of the Legislative Assembly to Alice Springs’. I remind members of this House that it was not possible to hold the sittings in Alice Springs before the previous government, the CLP, built the convention centre in Alice Springs. There was nowhere to accommodate parliamentary sittings prior to that so, naturally, that has been a new initiative. Well done to all the fantastic LA staff and support people whose efforts allow this transfer of sittings to happen. It is a good idea and it does allow it to happen. However, all the credit has been taken by this government for having the sittings there. What they have to realise is there was not a facility there prior to the convention centre.
The role of government is to look forward and introduce new and innovative ways of getting the best outcomes for the citizens that they serve. I found it quite intriguing that today, during our General Business Day, government has introduced this lengthy amendment to what was a reasonable request to end its current restrictions on the media, to open up the processes.
As I have said, I think I am a pretty decent woman and I do not want to dwell on things like the missing whistleblowers’ protection, although I must ask myself on this matter: what does the government have to hide? I also do not want to spend too much time on the issue of the code of conduct, not seen, yet heavily opposed by those opposite when we put forward an option. I want to make a comment on that, too. There was a gentleman sitting in the visitors gallery today who asked to speak to me at lunchtime. I did not know the gentleman at all, but he asked me about a code of conduct ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Katherine, your time has expired.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Speaker, I move that the member for Katherine be granted an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mrs MILLER: Madam Speaker, I met this gentleman in the hall and he asked me if members of parliament had to have a drug test before they came into parliament. My response was, ‘No’. He also asked me if we were tested for alcohol before we came into parliament at any time, after any …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition, and the amendment before the Chair, is in regard to the broadcast of Assembly proceedings. We have just granted the member for Katherine an extension of time, which is a parliamentary indulgence, to conclude her remarks to the motion and the amendment before the Chair. She is now off in a flight of fancy about drug and alcohol testing members of parliament that has absolutely nothing to do with the motion and the amendment before the Chair, which is in regards to the broadcasting of parliament. I urge you to get the member for Katherine back on to the motion and the amendment, or I should move a further amendment that the member no longer be heard because we have a lot of business to be concluded in the House today.
Mrs MILLER: Madam Speaker, may I speak to the point of order?
Madam SPEAKER: Speaking to the point of order.
Mrs MILLER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I had just that one very small digression. I am responding to the Leader of Government Business’ amendment that he put forward to our motion this morning. I am responding to that, and I have addressed that in what I have said.
Mr Henderson: It does not mention drug testing.
Madam SPEAKER: Please pause. Member for Katherine, the point of order is one which is quite correct; it does not seem to be very relevant. However, I will indulge you for a very short period of time. Your comments on this will want to be very fast, and then move back to the amendment or the motion.
Mrs MILLER: Certainly, Madam Speaker. The Leader of Government Business was very distinct and direct in what he put down as the Labor Party’s objectives since they came to power in 2001, and that is what I am speaking about. I also do not want to spend too much time on the fact that, according to the Labor Party, the world began in 2001, everything bad happened as a result of the of the Country Liberal Party, and the Labor Party can do no wrong.
In respect to the amendment put forward by the member for Wanguri, I move that all words after ‘the Assembly’ be omitted and insert in their place:
- Request the Standing Orders Committee report on:
(a) what, if any, adjustments are needed to the physical infrastructure, above and beyond the current building upgrade, to provide video and/or audio recording of all public proceedings of the Territory parliament and its committees;
(c) what, if any, effect this would have on the effective functioning of the Legislative Assembly and its committees;
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker, in regard to the procedural way this House deals with motions before the Chair. We had the initial motion proposed by the Leader of the Opposition which is on the Notice Paper and was circulated. I, as Leader of Government Business, have an amendment before the Chair. Those two questions have not been dealt with. Now, the member for Katherine is seeking to amend her own party’s motion that was proposed initially ...
Mrs Miller: No, I am seeking to amend your amendment.
Mr HENDERSON: There is no comprehension from the other side of the House as to what on earth they are doing with this. The member for Katherine is trying, essentially, to amend the Leader of the Opposition’s motion …
Mrs Miller: No, I am amending the Leader of Government Business’ motion.
Mr HENDERSON: … is causing a lot of confusion to this side of the House. I ask that if you are going to allow this amendment to the amendment, which is actually amending her own Leader of the Opposition’s initial motion, that that amendment to the amendment be circulated to members of this House so we can understand which amendment she is proposing to the initial motion as moved by the Leader of the Opposition. They have had all lunchtime to do this. I assume, if we are going to consider this amendment, that it has been typed up and circulated. We have not seen it. We have granted an extension of time, and there seems to be a lot of confusion going on in the opposition ranks as to exactly what they do want out of the initial motion as proposed by the Leader of the Opposition.
Madam SPEAKER: I am going to seek advice. I need to find out whether you can amend a proposed amendment.
Mrs Miller: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Do you have it in writing, member for Katherine?
Mrs MILLER: Yes, I do.
Madam SPEAKER: Can you please read it out?
Mrs MILLER: Certainly. Madam Speaker, in respect to the amendment put forward by the member for Wanguri, I move that all words after ‘the Assembly’ be omitted and insert in their place:
- Request the Standing Orders Committee report on:
(a) what, if any, adjustments are needed to the physical infrastructure, above and beyond the current building upgrade, to provide video and/or audio recording of all public proceedings of the Territory parliament and its committees;
Madam SPEAKER: I will allow the motion. Can you just make sure it is distributed immediately and get copies, particularly one for the Leader of Government Business and for the parliamentary staff?
Mrs MILLER: Certainly.
Mr Henderson: You just wiped out all of your leader’s initial motion.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! Please continue.
Mrs MILLER: Madam Speaker, I am sure there is enough there for the Leader of Government Business to digest in his response because we have now an amendment to his amendment to our motion.
Mr Henderson: It obliterates your leader’s initial motion.
Mrs MILLER: We know exactly what we are doing over here. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, can I speak to the amended amendment?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, you can.
Mr Wood: When do I get a chance, Madam Speaker?
Mr Henderson: You go first and I will get a copy of the amendment.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, you are speaking to the original motion, the amended motion, and the amended, amended motion.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I will talk to the lot. It is a bit like having a hamburger with the lot. I would like to say some general things about this. I must admit I thought this would be a good debate. When I saw the Leader of Government Business bring in his political swing to it, I thought, gee, maybe I should move an amendment to the amendment. But there has now been another amendment. I do not feel like bringing another amendment. If I was going to bring an amendment, Madam Speaker, I tell you what it would be, because this is the ridiculousness of it. This is a good subject to talk about but I think someone should have asked: ‘Should we change the colour of the carpet in the Chamber?’ So, I move that the colour of the carpet in the Chamber be changed to blue.
The CLP had been in power for 27 years and during that time (a) it never once changed the carpet; (b) deliberately tried to stop members of the public walking on this carpet; (c) required overseas carpet cleaners to sign AWAs; (d) continually carpeted the opposition; (e) removed any decisions about the carpet to the Darwin Carpet Authority known as the DCA, but we as the ALP …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order; Madam Speaker! There is the initial motion. There is the amendment moved by me, and the amendment to the amendment moved by the member for Katherine. None of those questions before the Chair go to the issue of the colour of the carpet. The member for Nelson is being extraordinarily frivolous. There is a lot of business before the Chair and motions on the Notice Paper, a number of which come from the member for Nelson.
I urge you get the member for Nelson back to the questions before the Chair so we can deal with this issue and move on with the serious business of the House instead of the theatrical grandstanding from the member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: May I speak to the point of order?
Madam SPEAKER: Very briefly, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, I am explaining what I said at the beginning: I expected this debate to be bipartisan. What I am doing is taking, to some extent, the mickey out of what the Leader of Government Business has done by introducing something into this debate that really should not have been introduced. We are talking about a serious issue, but you introduced party politics into something that I am saying …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, I have heard enough now. In relation to …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Resume your seat, member for Nelson. Order! Member for Nelson, I will allow you to continue with your remarks, but I would like you to come to the point and stick with the motion and the two amendments as much as possible.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, the motion also includes a point that the Leader of Government Business put in his amendment, which notes that ‘after 27 years of CLP …’. Straightaway, he introduced a political argument into this debate. What I was saying …
Mr Henderson: It is called the truth.
Mr WOOD: Once again, you see? What I was doing by this so-called theatrics was pointing out that you can take some things to a point which are ridiculous.
This is a good debate about whether we should broadcast and televise parliament. This so-called amendment was copying what you had tried to do, and putting it in a way to show you that your method of approaching this debate has turned into a political debate when it should not have. All I was saying is if you want to have a debate about whether the carpet should be changed to blue or whether we should be having televised sittings of parliament, it was something that really should not have been turned into a political debate. That is what I did. All I did was basically copy what you had, and I was being cynical about it.
You have turned it into this sort of debate and I am having a dig at it. There is nothing wrong with that in parliamentary debate. I will finish where I was when I said, copying your No 2, that we as the CLP support changing carpet colours. We believe that carpet colours should be protected by the UN convention on colour. We recommend carpets should only be cleaned using organic solvents and condemn the CLP because we have nothing better to do, state our opposition to green because people know it is not really representative of what we stand for. That is the joke behind this, Madam Speaker.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! It is about time the member for Nelson declared his Coalition National Party membership of the CLP.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Please continue.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, it is a bit sad that a serious debate on whether we should have the right to allow television, radio and Internet providers to record and rebroadcast all public parliamentary proceedings, which should have a bipartisan debate, was turned into a political debate simply because of that amendment.
When I have a go at it, you all jump up and down and squeal. That is exactly what that was about. You do not have to laugh; I do not care too much about that. The idea was show the hypocrisy of what we are doing when we should have been discussing the basic philosophy of what this debate is about.
I support the original motion because television, radio and Internet providers should be able to record and broadcast all public parliamentary proceedings. I have always been of that belief, long before the Press Club wrote its letter the other day. If this parliament is open to the public, then it should be broadcast to the public.
As for the member for Wanguri, he obviously thinks that ordinary workers live with a computer because you cannot stream parliamentary proceedings to someone who is sitting on a tractor or driving a truck. You cannot hear it. I always listened to Question Time when I was driving a tractor around the rural area doing slashing, but that is all I could do. I could not listen to parliamentary debates and a television does not sit on the front of my tractor. You said you can stream it on the Internet. The only way you are going to stream it on the Internet is with a computer. If people do not buy a computer, they cannot hear parliament. Parliament should be broadcast all the time ...
Members interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Well, you said it is streamed. That is your argument.
A member interjecting.
Mr WOOD: That is not much good if you do not have a computer next to you. If you want to hear parliament, and you are sitting on a tractor or you are out in the garden or somewhere, you are not going to carry a computer around in your backpack ...
Mr Henderson: Unless this parliament is going to have its own radio station and broadcast, I do not know how you are going to do it!
Mr WOOD: I agree with the motion that is before us. I believe it is a good motion. This debate could have been short and sweet if the Leader of Government Business had said we basically support the philosophy behind what the Leader of the Opposition is putting forward. Your mate said we would like to refer this to the Standing Orders Committee, and I would happily support the Leader of Government Business’ paragraph 4 where he requests the Standing Orders Committee to examine this. I hope it does not take as long as it did when I tried to get IT improvements in this House. That is another matter. I will support paragraph 4 put forward by the government. That is all I needed to do.
You introduced the politics to it, and I do not believe you needed to do that. We could have had a good bipartisan debate about this, and I believe that is what is needed. I introduced that silly thing about the colour of the carpet because it is in the same realm that we should have a debate. We do not need to go down the path of party politics. For the member for Karama to go on about the National Party and stuff, well, she just misses the point ...
Ms Lawrie: No, I do not.
Mr WOOD: Yes, you do. The other thing is, if the Press Club is also promoting this, I would like to say to the press that I believe one thing they could do in return is to ensure that all editorials in all newspapers in the Northern Territory are signed by the person who writes the editorials. When I am required to write a letter to the paper, I am required to sign it. When I stand in this parliament, they know who I am; my name will be on the television. However, when newspaper editors write editorials in the newspaper, they write them anonymously. I believe that if they want this House to broadcast all the time it is in session, then we could do a deal where they ensure their side of the bargain was that all editorials are signed off by the person who writes that editorial.
You have to remember that it is a very easy thing for people who write anonymously who are not elected. When I write something, or I stand up in here, it is recorded and people know what I say, and they can boo me or cheer me for whatever I write. When you see editorials in papers and you do not know who wrote it, those people are not responsible to anyone. I believe it is only fair that the people who write those editorials should sign their names.
Madam Speaker, I support the original motion. I support paragraph 4 of the amendment; I believe that is good. My complaint was that this debate, which is a good debate, it is worthy of a debate in this parliament, should be had. I am just disappointed that the element of politics came into it. It was unnecessary and actually spoiled this debate. If you can see some of the agro that occurred during this debate, it was unnecessary, and I believe we should have done better than that.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I will talk to the Leader of Government Business’s amendment, and then I will talk to our amendment. I begin, though, in relation to amendment 4 from the member for Nelson. I am not sure that the colour of the carpet needs to be changed, member for Nelson, but you make your point, and make it reasonably well in any event.
In relation to the government’s amended motion, it is interesting, and I guess to some extent this was what the member for Nelson was referring to. This motion started this morning as item No 6 on the Notice Paper and it consumes five or six lines. We now have bits of paper everywhere because this government did not want to have a fair dinkum debate.
We obviously do not support paragraphs 1, 2 and 3. Is paragraph 4 arguably supportable? Arguably, it is. We put our amendments. The member for Katherine put the amendments for sound reasons. We appreciate that the government’s amendment was probably done in haste, but we were concerned that there was no time line, implicit or contained, in the amendment. We see that as a deficiency. We make our point in relation to costs; we think that is an important point as well.
Most of us know that there needs to be an assessment of what, if any, adjustments are needed to the physical infrastructure of this building. I am sure the Leader of Government Business knows that. The other amendments contained in paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) speak for themselves.
It was unfortunate that government saw fit to politicise this. In a sense it highlights why our initial motion should be agreed to, because the shenanigans – and let us be honest, the shenanigans - of the government could be observed by anyone who wanted to observe it. We can match, in some respects, the government’s mischievous and, may I say, somewhat offensive remarks contained in paragraph 1, in particular, and paragraph 2. We can go down that path. If you want to get political, I will give you a taste.
In 1993, Brian Ede, one of the former Leaders of the Opposition talked about Labor Party policy, whistleblowers’ legislation, and code of conduct for ministers. Maggie Hickey had a bit to say about whistleblowers’ legislation and code of conduct for ministers. The Chief Minister, when in opposition - next Labor Opposition Leader off the mark – had a bit to say about whistleblowers’ legislation, code of conduct for ministers, and so on. She also had a bit to say about misuse of Question Time, reforming standing orders, asserting that the primary role of the Legislative Assembly is to make laws for the good of the people. She went on to say in her Good Governance paper that:
- Labor in government will review the above procedures to ensure a more effective and productive parliamentary process is created.
I feel certain that the member for Fannie Bay meant that when it was written.
If we, as a parliament, want to improve things for the people we represent then we need to have sensible discussions. What the government has done is serve up a really quite scandalous and offensive and, may I say, juvenile - although we are talking about the Leader of Government Business and if the hat fits, etcetera - response to a motion that was brought in good faith. I know that most members on the other side - not all - resent it almost to their core when members of the opposition question them, challenge them, and put alternatives forward. That is the role we play and we take that role very seriously.
I know what is going to happen with the motion. The government’s motion will get up by dint of its numbers. That is unfortunate in the sense that it is likely that this very issue of broadcast and rebroadcasting will be delayed. We are concerned in relation to the amendment that there is no time frame. I do not think that is unreasonable. In any event, I suggest that if it ends up before the Standing Orders Committee, then so be it. I feel confident that you, Madam Speaker, will have an active role to play.
To the extent that we tried and something may come of it, I do not think that we can be entirely disappointed. With those comments, Madam Speaker, I conclude.
Madam SPEAKER: We have three motions before the Chair. The first is the original motion from the Leader of the Opposition; the second is the motion from the Leader of Government Business, which is an amendment to the original motion; then there is an amendment to the amendment as moved by the member for Katherine. The process is we move the amendment to the amendment first. The question is that the motion as put by the member for Katherine be agreed to.
Motion negatived.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that the motion as put by the Leader of Government Business be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the motion, as amended, be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Police - Establishment and Crime
Police - Establishment and Crime
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move – That the Assembly -
(1) condemn the Martin Labor government for its failure to address rising rates of personal crime across the Territory;
- (a) bring and keep the Northern Territory Police Force at establishment;
(b) outline her plans to reduce the attrition rate in the NT Police Force;
(c) increase the number of police vehicles in each sector across Darwin, Palmerston and the major centres by at least one per sector;
(d) provide 20 police to Alice Springs over and above establishment numbers; and
The intention of the motion is very clear. It is not surprising that the opposition brings it, given the release of the crime statistics and, indeed, what has occurred in the northern suburbs of Darwin. In each of our communities, our constituents talk to us and, of course, we have eyes and ears, about what has occurred in their community and that crime rates are increasing.
I will deal with parts of the motion. We say get the police force as a whole to full strength and keep it there. That implies building in a bit of fat, especially given the current attrition rate which, last time I looked, was something in the order of 8% or thereabouts. You need to get extras where they are needed and adjust this establishment or full strength figure accordingly, as additional positions once created to be in a place substantively means that the establishment figures as a whole rise by that amount. In other words, get it to full strength, keep it there, and build in the capacity so that when police officers leave, whether it is permanently, or they are on recreation leave and so on, you do not want to have the numbers fall even below establishment, as we have seen around the Territory,.
In relation to providing additional police vehicles in each of the sectors of Darwin, Palmerston and across the Territory - which includes additional police which we have called for as part of our 2006 budget reply – it speaks for itself. I invite the Chief Minister to revisit our budget reply in which we were very clear about including additional police for the additional police vehicles in each of the relevant sectors. We need additional men and women in uniform. Members will recall that, in fact, we even costed it in our 2006 budget reply. The addition of those police officers will lift the overall establishment figures for those four sectors in Darwin by about 32 on our calculations.
Third, provide the known need - and it is a well known need - for additional police in Alice Springs. As I have consistently said, we are advised that 20 is the mark that would be appreciated by officers as well as the general public in Alice Springs. The addition of the 20 will lift the overall establishment figures for the Territory by 20 as well.
Fourth, through addressing the attrition rate, which I have touched on, it does imply and will necessitate more police provided to the force as a whole. One does not need to be especially clever to work that one out.
Fifth, when the number of police needed in all other areas across the Territory is identified - and that occurs and what needs to be done will be done by this government - the opposition will be the first to support such an increase in these areas. This will mean additional police to the force, which the opposition supports. So get it to full strength and keep it there. You have to do something about your attrition rate. We do need additional police for the police vehicles per sector as per our 2006 budget reply, which we costed. The number of additional police officers was 32. An additional 20 police in Alice Springs will also add to the overall establishment numbers. I repeat that when this government delivers what needs to be delivered, we will be the first to support the delivery of increases in these areas because it will mean additional police and all of us support that.
Mr Deputy Speaker, had the government picked up our proposal for additional police cars and the associated increase in police men and women in 2006, then we would not, perhaps, be in the situation we are in now. Maybe the Chief Minister should have chosen another minister to be Police minister, as she has not demonstrated to any Territorian what her vision is to build capacity and numbers in our Territory police force. I am not sure whether the Chief Minister supports extra police vehicles in each of the sectors of Darwin and Palmerston, and across the Territory. I look forward to hearing from her when she replies to this motion.
In relation to the addition of police patrols, my advice is that it has not changed over a period of about 20 years. This government, in the motion just debated, was at pains to say the CLP did not do this and did not do that, ‘But by jingoes, when we came to government, look at all the things we did’. Would you not think that they might say in relation to police: ‘The number of police cars per sector has not changed for 20 years and we are a government, we have lots of money and we are going to fix that’? Alas, this government and its many Police ministers have refused to even tackle it.
There is a somewhat mischievous suggestion that the opposition is looking to take police from elsewhere in the Territory and put them in Alice Springs and not increase the overall number of police in the Territory to meet the need. It is, with the greatest respect to those peddling it, an implausible position when looking at the motion’s intent and what has been said in this parliament and, in particular, our replies to the 2006 budget.
Let us cut to the chase. The Chief Minister has been at the helm since 2001. She has made a number of promises and I will deal with the line ‘200 extra police on the beat’ in due course. However, you would have to say on the basis of the government released crime statistics that more police are needed. I expect the Chief Minister to bag the CLP, talk about O’Sullivan, and go down the line that her predecessor did in suggesting that there are 200 extra police on the beat.
We remember when the language changed - and there are plenty of glossies around ‘200 extra police on the beat is what Labor is going to provide’. Then the language changed to ‘200 extra personnel’ and so on. It is mischievous in the extreme to be that slippery and disingenuous in looking after our fellow Territorians and providing them with the sort of protection they need, viz what happened in the northern suburbs on the weekend; however, it is certainly mischievous in the extreme to maintain the position that all has been done and that is the end of the matter.
What we do see is the Chief Minister, on occasion when pushed in parliament, say: ‘Oh, more needs to be done’. Well, the government was not saying ‘more needs to be done’ when the former minister for Police was talking ad nauseum about 200 extra police provided by this government. The government and various ministers - and we have had three Police ministers - really do not have anywhere to go. The people of our regional centres and Darwin are looking at them for leadership and no leadership is being provided.
The government has misled the people of the Northern Territory. There have been volumes of brochures shoved into people’s letterboxes about 200 extra police on the beat. The ‘beat’ part has been dropped from the language altogether because that was not delivered, and it is dishonest to suggest that they have been. If we have all of the extra police on the beat, we ask a straightforward question: where are they? Where are the extra patrol units on our streets? A quick look at any Darwin or Alice Springs roster from a few years ago still shows that there is the same number of police in the patrol group as there were 10, 15, 20 years ago, as I have indicated. When government says it has ‘police on the beat’, people expect to see police on the beat keeping their streets safe. They are not seeing it under this government.
The point I made last year was that, across the Territory, there are only 30 more general duties positions than there were five years ago. That is the information the opposition has received. I invite the Chief Minister to contradict it if she believes that that is not the case. The Martin government has taken ‘on the beat’ to mean specialised sections, including the Drug Squad, the Bureau of Criminal Intelligence, and units like the Domestic Violence Unit. A BCI officer or Drug Squad officer is not an officer ‘on the beat’ - government’s words not ours - and the government consistently tries to suggest that additional officers in these other important units are on the beat. They are not and people have stopped swallowing the line, in our view.
The second aspect of the fairy tale is the numbers. The former minister admitted that there was no way that the police were going to make an extra 200 as promised by the end of 2006. We wonder, and I invite the Chief Minister to advise in her response, how many extras are going to be there by the end of 2007? She should have that information available and I invite her to provide it and table it if necessary.
In the 2002 annual report, the number of constables was 535. In the last annual report, the number of constables was 669. That means that the numbers of constables have gone up by 134 in that period. The former Police minister claimed that the next recruit squad of 52 will fill the gap, but it will not. The police force continues a very high attrition rate, losing between 120 to 130 people a year, based on our information. It is more than six months until the middle of next year and 52 is not even half of the annual attrition rate. The former minister did not reach his target at the end of last year, and this Police minister will not reach the target by the end of this year.
Last year, due to a significant shortage of operational police officers in many regions of the Northern Territory, four police sergeants were ordered to serve at Tennant Creek. Last year, Alice Springs lost close to 30 officers and our advice is that only seven were being replaced from last year’s squad, and only a handful have gone down this year. Government consistently counts the 24 or so school-based constables in order to bolster the numbers. Those school-based constables should not be included in government numbers.
At pages 43 and 44 of the Police annual report 2002, the Police Commissioner reported that response time targets for picking up 000 calls was not met because of staffing issues in the call centre, and because of the extra 10 113 emergency calls. I am sorry; I will correct that it was not in the 2002 annual report. I believe it was in the last annual report. Emergency calls skyrocketed and the government is not meeting call response targets, and difficulties continue with the communications at the Alice Springs Police Station. Indeed, I got a pretty angry call from a constituent only a few days ago in relation to that.
If there are an extra 200 police available, why is the Police Commissioner reporting that staffing issues are a problem in telephone response times? Second, if the community is so much safer, why has the number of emergency calls gone up by over 10 000 or by about 25%?
According to the 2001-02 Police annual report, the police force had 164 executive and administrative staff working for it. In the last annual report, there were 217 executive and administrative staff working for the Police, Fire and Emergency Services – that was an increase of 32%. According to our calculations, the department has gone from seven executives to 13 executives in that time.
According to the annual report in the area of criminal investigations, the police dedicated 17 000 hours, or 2125 days, less to investigations than they budgeted for. That equals 5.82 years of police work that was not done last year alone.
However you look at it, this government has failed to ensure that the people of the Northern Territory have the numbers of police that they expect and deserve.
For the past couple of years, as I have said, government has told the community that these 200 extra police would be ‘on the beat’. As I have said in previous debate, the term ‘on the beat’ is understood by the average person to mean ‘on the street’. Interestingly, government seems less enthusiastic about using the term ‘on the beat’ these days than they did only a few months ago. We suspect that the reason for that is because they are not there, and government knows full well it cannot - as the previous Police minister knew he could not - deliver the 200 extra police on the beat which was promised by the government, and that is why they started to fudge the language.
The government should be condemned, as the motion outlines, as it is very clear that more police are needed. However you consider this debate, this Police minister, her predecessor, and others have failed. What makes it very concerning, however, is the way the government continues to fudge the language. All of us, as local members, listen to our constituents ringing in concerned about lack of response times. Not for a moment do we blame the police for this; it is a resourcing problem. There is no doubt that this government must do more. Resourcing our police service is not just an issue in the Territory. We know that it is competitive. That is why a government has to look to increasingly creative and innovative ways to get police men and women to serve in the Territory.
People feel safe when they see police officers on the beat. Government knows that. That is why they were at pains to assure everyone prior to the last election that they would deliver 200 extra police on the beat. It sounds good, doesn’t it? Our job is to show Territorians where this government has failed and they certainly have failed when it comes to this promise. Who would have thought that with the additional funds, $1.1bn a year, that this government would not be able to fulfil a promise such as that?
The condemnation that the government deserves ranges across a number of areas. The most recent crime statistics speak for themselves, and we asked questions about it yesterday. The effect of what the Chief Minister said in one of her responses was that the more police you have the more likelihood there is of crime occurring. That is just one thing she mucked up. Another one she mucked up was inviting me to talk about property crime. We ran out of time. I am very happy to talk about property crime, and it is regrettable that we ran out of time yesterday because the Chief Minister clearly does not read her own crime statistics. If she did she would not be as cocky as she is in relation to property crime.
The facts are that since the June quarter 2004 to the current June quarter, property crime has risen from 4780 offences to 5223, or nearly 10%. Crimes against the person, over the same period, have risen by 64%. The Chief Minister and her colleagues like to spin because that is the way they govern in the Northern Territory. You cannot spin your own figures when anyone can access them and when, if they are understood and even graphed, you will see an upward trend.
What do we hear from the Chief Minister as a result of the mayhem in some northern suburbs of Darwin on the weekend? ‘Oh yes, there is more to do’. Well, the people in the northern suburbs are getting sick and tired of hearing that line. She said it at the last election, and the Chief Minister has been at pains to say it pretty much ever since. As we discussed in Question Time yesterday, the Attorney-General in October 2006 introduced in this parliament anti-gang laws which were passed. As I said in Question Time yesterday, according to the government’s own words, this was the stuff that was going to fix all of the gang problems, it was going to be an effective tool - and on and on went the spin from this government. Twelve months on, have there been any inroads in the northern suburbs of Darwin, let us say? No. That is why we saw what happened on the weekend. Yesterday, in essence, the Chief Minister said: ‘Oh yes, there is a bit more to do’. Well there certainly is. That is why the Chief Minister and her government need to be condemned.
Territorians want to see their government acting and reacting in very positive ways. They want to see long-term solutions. When the former Police minister launched another mobile van, last year I think it was, he said this is going to fix things. I am not sure that is a view he would still hold. Therefore, instead of lurching from crisis to crisis, spinning out a media release, trying to get your head on the telly saying: ‘Oh we care and there is more to do’, we demand, as Territorians demand of this government, action and we ask the government not to lurch from crisis to crisis. We want strategies and plans.
In terms of paragraph 2(b) of the motion today, for instance, where are the Chief Minister’s plans to reduce the attrition rate? She made herself Police minister; there was a fair bit of fanfare about that. Have we heard from the Chief Minister what her plans are to reduce the attrition rate in the Northern Territory? No, we have not heard any. Have we had a statement in the parliament about that? No. Have we heard the Chief Minister’s comments in relation to bringing and keeping the Northern Territory Police Force at establishment, factoring in the increased officers needed for the patrols and putting extra police in Alice Springs? No. In fact, quite strangely, we have heard pretty much nothing from the Chief Minister for a very long time.
I know she likes to talk about other things and she does get a bit defensive when we talk about crime in the parliament because she would rather (a) not deal with it, and (b) pretend that it is just not there. Well, it is there and the government’s own crime figures tell all and sundry that quarter-on-quarter, for instance, June 2006 compared with June 2007, violent crime rates are up in Darwin by 88.5% and are trending upwards.
There is no wonder that residents of Darwin and others across the Territory feel unsafe. This is a time, based on the calls that we received in our office on Monday morning, when people are calling for action. The Police minister in response will say: ‘What have we heard from the CLP? We have not heard anything from them’. In fact, you have. You have heard constructive suggestions pretty much all the way through. Mounted police in Alice Springs is another example. That is needed. I do understand, however, that mounted police are going to become permanent.
We have talked about additional patrols per sector. You howled us down. We even costed it in the budget reply in 2006. I am not sure that Labor ever did anything like that when they were in opposition. However, I digress. The Chief Minister will stand up and will be, as is usually the case, insulting, patronising and, if she has had a bad day, which she may have had because her colleagues might be at it again, she might be vitriolic.
The facts speak for themselves. It is a pity that with $1.1bn extra per year in the budget since 2001, this government simply does not direct sufficient resources. Has government directed more resources than the CLP? Yes, they did. You want to know why? Because they receive an extra $1.1bn every year. We expect the line from the Chief Minister. They serve it up and we will hit it back.
Any government worth their salt would have invested in health, education, police, etcetera. That is the job of government, not just to do spin, slither away when things become too tricky, and come into this parliament and say there is more to do. Nor is it to issue media releases like the one Chief Minister issued yesterday, which, in essence, is a repeat of so many other media releases issued by her former Police minister colleagues. They must, on their computer system up there, member for Blain, have the ‘Whoops, bad crimes stats’ media release and do the cutting and pasting and stick it all together.
The Chief Minister has talked about repeat offenders. We have not heard too much about that, so that is a new on. Someone has come up with something. That is encouraging, but we want it to be better than legislation brought into the Chamber that is flawed, which was created only for the intention of spinning away from a problem. We, like everyone else in the Territory, really do want to see improvements.
I will be the first to applaud government if we see the consistent improvements if our constituents no longer ring our offices distressed and upset at what has happened to their house, their car, their son, their daughter. In this regard, for instance, I received an e-mail from my electorate office only a couple of days ago saying that one of my constituent’s has a son who has been assaulted three times by the same other young boy. These kids are about 16. Other kids have been bashing this kid up. My constituent told me that he went to the police station to report it and it took him, according to him, six hours in the police station making complaints. If it is taking that long - and I am relying only on what this man has told me - then that is not good enough. People want to go the police station and report crimes, and they want the matter dealt with.
Clearly, our police men and women are very good at what they do and they work tremendously hard, but the buck stops with government. Even today, in the Northern Territory News there was a letter to the editor from a partner of a police officer saying that this police officer is just working an enormous amount of overtime, and he is one of hundreds. I have said here before, and I will say it again: we live in a small jurisdiction. We have friends who are police officers. We know how dedicated and professional they are. We also know, because they tell us because they are our friends, not because we are CLP or opposition. They tell us because they have been friends for years. They tell us about the problems they experience. It is for that reason that we bring this motion.
The government should be condemned. We call on the Chief Minister to get the numbers up and improve them further. We want to hear about her plans for the attrition rate. We want the increase of police vehicles in each sector. We want the extra 20 police that are clearly needed and long called for in Alice Springs. We want to know where the 200 extra police on the beat have gone. And, if 200 have not been delivered - and maybe this Police minister might be the first one to actually be honest about it - then how many have been? Where are they? Is it expected that additional numbers will be provided by this government?
Mr Deputy Speaker, accordingly, I move the motion, and I look forward to hearing from the Chief Minister and the member for Blain.
Ms MARTIN (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Mr Deputy Speaker, I listened carefully to the Opposition Leader’s and Police spokesperson’s arguments today. One particular issue has occurred to me. I did some checking while the Opposition Leader was speaking, and there were many comments in there about ‘I am advised’, or ‘we think that’. I say to the Opposition Leader, we are happy to give you briefings. We checked – there have been no requests to me for any briefings about contemporary facts and figures. I do not think there were any requests to the previous Police minister; we have checked that. Also, we do not think there was any request of the previous Police minister, the Leader of Government Business.
So we are looking at a time in well over two years, when I think that the Opposition Leader has been Police spokesperson, where she has not ever sought a general police briefing on any of the issues. The reference in the speech was, ‘well, if you check the rosters’. This debate deserves more accuracy than those ad hoc speculative arrangements that the Opposition Leader seems to rely on.
I say again to the Opposition Leader: seek a briefing. I am very happy to offer a briefing. The previous Police minister would have done the same and the previous minister as well. It is important that, if we are going to have informed debates in this House - and we have just spent a couple of hours of the House’s time talking about how this debate needs to be broadcast to the world - this debate needs to be well informed as a first point. I do not know how you function as an opposition unless you get those briefings, unless you say: ‘Okay, let us look at the facts and figures here’, and do it in a briefing situation.
I have had experience in opposition. We sought briefings constantly. We are open to briefings and often have to chase you down to ask if you want a briefing on this or that The Opposition Leader can look shifty in her chair, but it is actually a very serious issue. I am genuinely saying, to listen to half-an-hour from the Opposition Leader where the references are not contemporary - because she has not chosen to get a briefing in the last couple of months from me as Police minister, or the previous Police minister, or the previous one before that - is very disappointing. It lacks a real commitment to either her job or presenting a factual story about what is happening, and that is very disappointing. I put on the record now, if the Opposition Leader would like a briefing on any of those aspects that she has raised during debate today, just ask. Just ask, because we will be very forthcoming on all those kind of briefings.
I have to deal with this issue the Opposition Leader raised about the amount of extra funds coming into the Territory. I do not believe I am misquoting the Opposition Leader, but she said, ‘Since 2001, we have had an extra $1.1bn each year’. I think that was right, wasn’t, Treasurer?
Mr Stirling: Yes, that was the figure.
Ms MARTIN: They were the words used. That is six years. We should have this massive budget of about $10bn. We do not - we do not. What we have is a difference between about $2.2bn, which has grown over that period of time to about $3.3bn now. I point out that the maths the Opposition Leader is talking about is rubbish. It is actually rubbish. I am not being condescending but, if we are going to use figures, then let us use accurate figures. If we had $1.1bn extra for six years, we would now have a budget of $8.4bn. We would have a budget to be dealing with $8.4bn, which would be fantastic. We seriously thank the Commonwealth government and seriously look at our own revenue raising capacity.
However, the fact is, that is not right. So, can we deal with facts when we are talking about budgets in the Territory? We think it was about $2.2bn in 2001, now it is up to about $3.3bn. We have seen, over that period of time, an increase in that budget, but it has been incremental over that period of time. Can we just establish that as the fact of the matter?
Government rejects the motion that was put forward today. One of the points that I have just made about the lack of facts, the lack of briefings, is fundamental to rejecting the motion that has been put forward.
I am proud to place on the record in this House the effort this government has undertaken to ensure the community is protected and safe. That does not mean everything is running perfectly, but we have put considerable effort into ensuring that this community is protected and safe, and we will continue to do that. As I said yesterday, government is committed to swift action to combat crime wherever it appears.
I am not one who regularly harps back in history, to the times of previous CLP government, but it is important to get a context here. When you see a motion like this before the House, I cannot help but reflect on what it was like when we inherited and took over the law and order issue over the last six years.
Let us just look back at 2001. These are the facts. In 2001, when we had a budget of about $2.2bn to run the Territory, the police numbers were low, with the police force members forced to work enormous hours. Police were leaving at a very high attrition rate. Morale was low and stress levels were high. No doubt about it. That was 2001. We instigated a review into police numbers which was done by Jim O’Sullivan – the O’Sullivan Review. That review demonstrated that, in 2003, police numbers including constables and above, ACPOs and auxiliaries, stood at 904. Today, as of 30 September - just a few weeks ago - that number is now 1127, an increase of 222. The opposition can duck and weave and throw up statistics and facts, but it is hard to get past the fact that, in 2003, there were 904 bodies in police uniforms and, today, there are 1127.
In addition to that 1127, I also recently announced the employment of 40 additional police officers. As part of Closing the Gap, we have funded an additional 24 police who will be allocated to the Child Abuse Task Force, and this will free up around the same number of police to return to other duties. We are also employing an additional 16 police in the bush as part of our remote community police strategy. While they are in place, this will bring the number of additional police, ACPOs and auxiliaries to 242 since 2003. That is additional – 242. As a proportion of our police force, that will mean we will have increased numbers by 26%. I say there would be very few governments in Australia who achieved that in the last four years. That is a fact about police numbers.
Let me now turn to the resources issues. We have increased the police numbers, but we have also increased police resources. In this case, we have an even better story to tell. Since 2001, we have increased the budget for Police, Fire and Emergency Services by 65%. Today, the budget for Police, Fire and Emergency Services is $226m, and that money has gone to improving equipment, improving facilities, and getting more advanced and better tools for the police to do the job they do. We have used those resources to improve the pay and conditions of police, believing as we do that our police should be properly rewarded for what is a tough job. We have provided some conditions that are leading the nation; housing, for example, comes to mind. I feel that the evidence is there to suggest that these additional resources and improved conditions have been effective in reducing the staff attrition numbers.
Listening to the Opposition Leader; she just scouted around to pluck a number from somewhere. She said: ‘I think attrition is at 8%’. I can tell the Opposition Leader that the attrition rate has been reduced from 6% to 4.5% and, if she wanted to ask for a briefing, we would tell her that. It undermines her credibility if she comes in here with a serious motion that she has put before the House and makes up figures. 4.5% is the attrition rate from our police force. Compare that with our very mobile workforce in the Territory. As we have said over the last 24 hours in here, we have a turnover in the public sector of about 25% each year; a quarter of our 16 000 public servants turn over every year. To compare that with just 4.5% in police means that our police are much more committed, are working well in what they are doing, than they were a few years ago. That is in the context of the Australian Federal Police building their numbers quite considerably, of other police forces also being very active in marketing for officers coming from other forces. So 4.5% is a real tribute to the additional resources that have gone into our police.
The additional capital resources we have put into place have also been used to build police stations and posts around the Territory. For example, we have built a police station at Humpty Doo and had the plans in place for a new police station at Casuarina. Around the Territory, police posts and facilities have also been built. We have cooperated with the Commonwealth in identifying further areas for expansion of a police presence. The resources we have put in have been focused on improving the capability of police, their facilities and equipment.
Let me turn to the legislative tools we have put in place to assist police in doing their job. Prior to coming to office, the government of the day, the CLP, who were in power for 27 years, refused to accept …
Mr Conlan: Another history lesson.
Ms MARTIN: The member for Greatorex has been here for two minutes, but if you read a few Parliamentary Records and listen to what your predecessors said, your predecessors refused to accept that there was a link between drugs and crime. They stood in this parliament time and time again and said: ‘What are you opposition on about? There is no link between drugs and crime’.
Dr Burns: Minuscule; that is what he said.
Ms MARTIN: Minuscule, that was the word, wasn’t it? It was a minuscule impact of drugs and crime.
Mr Mills: It was none of us. None of us were there.
Ms MARTIN: You were there. It was 1999, member for Blain. We know when you came in here and that was in the heyday of saying the problem with drugs and crime, the link was minuscule. The former member for Brennan used that quite regularly.
Mr Conlan: You get that feeling you have to have some length of service before people even give you any credibility?
Ms MARTIN: When I attacked, when the opposition attacked …
Mr Conlan: According to the member for Millner, if you have not been here for 25 years, you are not alive, it does not matter.
Ms MARTIN: … the extent of drug availability in the Territory in the late 1990s …
Mr Conlan: You have to be in this House, I do not how long do you have to be in this House, Chief Minister, before you are even entitled to an opinion?
Ms MARTIN: … I was attacked by the then government, probably also the member for Blain who is pretending he was not here in those days.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Chief Minister, one moment. Member for Greatorex, could you reduce your interjections, please.
Ms MARTIN: Thank you. It is all very well for the member for Blain, the Deputy Opposition Leader, to say: ‘I was not here then’. Well, he was. He certainly was, along with his colleagues who were in government, who said that there was no link between drugs and crime. Remember the ‘minuscule’ word? It was great.
When we came to government in 2001, we moved quickly to introduce new legislation aimed at tackling drugs. We introduced drug house laws and I believe those laws, together with the additional capacity by the police, had a significant impact on property crime and made a significant difference. We have also introduced legislation improving the ability to intercept communications where criminal activity is involved. We have reformed the Criminal Code to ensure the laws and penalties are updated. We have introduced legislation designed to remove the profits of crime from criminals and have taken away millions of dollars of assets from them. It has worked extraordinarily well. It is a very powerful tool.
We have also introduced legislation aimed at resolving some of the underlying causes of criminal activity. Our family justice mediation process, supported by the community justice legislation, is aimed at getting to the underlying conflicts that exist between large families, particularly in some of our remote communities.
The alcohol restrictions that we introduced and will continue to introduce are the most comprehensive in Australia. We have dry area legislation, public areas legislation, private restricted premises, as well as an array of alcohol management plans backed by legislation where it is needed.
We are reforming and improving the protection provided to victims of domestic and family violence, and we have introduced anti-gang legislation which, despite the claims of the Opposition Leader in this debate, provides police with an additional tool to disrupt and apprehend gangs. I have also outlined plans by government to introduce legislation aimed at dealing with repeat offenders, particularly youths, and measures designed to make parents more responsible for the behaviour of children out on the streets at night.
Again, if you look at the facts of what was presented by the Opposition Leader, she said ‘anti-gang legislation does not work’. I say to the Opposition Leader there is a raft of legislation never contemplated by the previous government that we have systematically introduced to be able to give police the tools to tackle crime in the Territory. That is a long list of legislation, particularly the legislation that we are starting to now see the effect of: the legislation that tackles the abuse of alcohol.
The dry areas legislation is having good effect in Alice Springs, and I am pleased about that. We will continue to monitor it, and ensure that it is having a good effect. However, it is only one measure in tackling the problem. When you have a significant problem, as we have with alcohol abuse in the Territory, we need to keep chipping away it. There is no magic bullet. We are not the Mal Brough believers; that problems have a magic bullet solution. You have to systematically tackle problems as they emerge and keep being creative and flexible in how you deal with them ...
Mr Conlan: If you had attacked the problem in the first place …
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! Member for Greatorex.
Mr Conlan: It is easy to pick on Mal Brough.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Greatorex!
Ms MARTIN: I believe the dry areas legislation, the public areas legislation, the private restricted premises – and I pay tribute to Housing working very effectively with tenants to see individual tenants in public housing across the Territory declare their premises dry. I do not know whether the minister has the latest figure, but there were …
Mr McAdam: Twenty-nine in Alice Springs in the last few months.
Ms MARTIN: Twenty-nine in Alice Springs. Housing is actively working with their tenants who want to declare their own premises dry and support that tackling of the abuse of alcohol we see. There is no doubt in many of our public housing areas, particularly the complexes, that the abuse of alcohol is one of the key issues about why there is antisocial behaviour.
Madam Speaker, I have now put before the House the facts about police numbers, police resources and the legislative tools available to police to do their job.
Let me now turn to statistics. Again, unlike the CLP in their 26 or 27 years of government, this government has put into place a statistics unit based in the Department of Justice, which regularly reports on crime statistics. It was interesting to go back to the debates where we said you need to have independent statistics, and it was fought hard and long by the then government. You would look at annual reports, and annual report after annual report would have different comparisons. You could never do anything with the police figures that were presented. As soon as you thought you had a handle on them, they would change the categories so that you were then told you were not comparing apples and apples; you had apples and bananas or something equivalent.
We did so. We made the commitment to have independent figures, a statistics unit, and we also knew that the opposition could do what they liked with those figures, knowing that every quarter we would be under public scrutiny. Those figures provide an important indication of the different aspects of crime. As I said yesterday, the most recent figures show a rise in the reported assaults, around 9% on a year-by-year basis. We are not backing off.
Yesterday in the House I talked a length about the concern we have about the number of assaults, but also some of the reasons why we are seeing them. Overall, property crime remains down by 30% since 2001. That does not mean every quarter it is dropping, but it does mean that overall we are seeing a drop. Sometimes there are spikes but, overall, we have seen that drop by 30% since 2001. Commercial break-ins are down by 23% since 2001, but those commercial break-ins are up in the last 12 months – not good enough. Property damage is down by 22% since 2001, but has been creeping up in the last 12 months, that is up 8%. We are not distorting figures. They are the figures.
Motor vehicle theft, down 50% since 2001, and house break-ins are down 48% since 2001. So house break-ins, which really, for members here, doorknocking in your electorate before 2001, the key issue you heard was break-ins to houses, and that really was a direct link with drugs. It was those using drugs who needed to raise the funds, and they were breaking in. When you went from door to door in many areas in my electorate, the first issue you heard was either they had had a break-in, or somebody next door or somebody close by had had a break-in. Establishing the methadone maintenance program and drug house legislation has seen a real difference in the number of people dependent on drugs who were breaking into houses to get the funds they needed. Sometimes it was funding a $100-a-day drug problem. They needed to make that money. We have stopped that by doing what was needed to be done a long time ago.
Police advise that the rise in violence is, in part, due to changes in reporting processes. That is one of the reasons why there has been a rise in the number of assaults. However, over 60% of assaults in the Territory are alcohol-related and, as I have indicated, we have made curbing alcohol abuse a clear priority by introducing the strongest alcohol restrictions in Australia. However, we will not put up with the rubbish that the Commonwealth has imposed on the Territory which, as the minister responsible made very clear in Question Time …
Mr Conlan: If you had done your job in the first place he would not be here.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms MARTIN: … the $100 - it is just ridiculous. It has no outcome associated with it; it is just documentation. I can buy $99.95-worth of alcohol and I do not have to record anything. Then I can go and buy another $99, and then another $99. What does that achieve? You have retailers, takeaways, having to document and people delayed in wanting to move through the takeaways for no outcome but having lists. I suggest that the lists, knowing Territorians, probably have some quite interesting things written on them. I have heard reports that people are not taking it seriously because it is not to be taken seriously.
Alcohol is a serious issue for the Territory, and when you put in legislation it has to be well targeted, well thought through, and it actually has to lead to results that mean that alcohol abuse is going down. That one is a load of rubbish.
The pattern that these figures that I have been talking about show is that we have less property crime victims and more reported victims of assaults. It also shows that we must continue to keep property crime under focus to ensure that we keep a lid on the problem. These are the facts. Government is not trying to deny any problems, the problems are out there. We saw them at Wanguri over the weekend. The problems are certainly out there.
Equally, we will not let the opposition say that crime is out of control. It is not. Today, we are better equipped, better focused and better resourced to attack crime than ever before. I believe the police are doing a solid and strong job. However, that does not mean there is not more to do, re-assessments to do, and new strategies to put in place.
I will, as Police minister, work very closely with our Police Commissioner and our police force to ensure that we are able to respond as issues emerge, that we are able to tackle the problems that we have. It is not just about what police are doing, though. It is about how police are working across government, working with Racing, Gaming and Licensing, and with other areas of government when it comes to antisocial behaviour. This is the strategy that we are currently reviewing to ensure that, when we deal with antisocial behaviour and other aspects of community disturbances, that we have strategies backing up what police are doing, because police can only do so much. There are other issues that have to be addressed; a much more whole-of-government approach to keeping our communities safe and keeping disturbances down is certainly the direction for the future.
I thank our police force for the hard work they do. I know they are getting extra police. We are constantly looking at what resourcing is needed. I thank them for their hard work. I know that we have more to do. We have to work more closely with our community. We have to open up those channels of communication. I believe that we can see a safer community - that is not just here in Darwin, it is in Alice Springs and remote parts of the Territory. We will; we have that as a target, Madam Speaker, and we are after achieving that.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, in this matter, this context, this adversarial toing and froing, it is difficult to gain a proper toehold. However, we have to start with a clear proposition. The simple fact is that a state or territory government has a core responsibility to deliver services. In order to deliver those services, they have the capacity to generate own source revenue through taxes, fees and charges, and they also receive federal grants and GST. It is a simple matter, in the broader sense, of assessing the core business of delivering service to the community that has elected you, and the revenue that you receive in order to perform that function.
These figures, by the way, are figures that were provided through the estimates process. During the estimates process earlier on, I asked what the population increase has been since 2001. The population increase since 2001 probably has just nudged up a point of a percent since then according to the dorothy dixer in Question Time today. However, in 2001 until estimates, it was a 7% increase in population. In that same period of time, the increase in own source revenue to the Territory government coffers has been an increase of 67%. A 7% increase in population; more people to deliver services to - but, look over here, there has been a 67% increase in own source revenue of stamp duty, fees and charges. Stamp duty is significantly increased to this Territory government as a result of the housing boom and the increased cost in houses and the like.
When we look at GST, to be honest, you will admit that the expectations on the GST from the Commonwealth down to the states and territories is far greater than they ever expected. The Northern Territory population has increased 7% since 2001, own source revenue has increased by 67% and GST has increased by 80% in that same period. It is a fact, and your office cannot dispute that because that was provided during your own estimates process.
Then, we go to the other broad question. The core responsibility of a state or territory government is to deliver services. How effectively are you delivering those services? When it comes to the issue of police, the police themselves are an extension of a plan to restrain the antisocial and criminal within our community and to promote a more civil society. Have they been successful in this? Have they been resourced? Has the resourcing increased? Yes, it has. There has been a review - we have heard this many times - and that review asked important questions and posed certain answers to those questions, and certain levels of resourcing have flowed as a result of that.
Government just needs to get over it. That is what you are meant to do: conduct reviews. If you are going to get your jollies by looking back at what happened before and say: ‘Oh, but, look what happened’, that is fine. That only indicates that you are really more interested in yourself and how you appear before the community rather than what you do for the community. That is why this sort of response is unsatisfying.
The issue is whether crime has increased over this period. We have percentage figures chucked backwards and forwards. But, as the member for Wanguri, in his heyday, in those early days, in those heady days of government - I notice that the heady days have gone now, they have a heady ache because they do not like going out as much as they used to. Now they ain’t getting stroked the right way and they are getting criticised and grumbled at about the state of affairs in the Northern Territory so you do not see them going around the traps as much as you used to.
There is only one member north of Katherine who is CLP and I seem to be popping up at a number of functions these days where there is not one Labor member. That is quite a contrast from the first term when they were there, strutting around the place with their little tail feathers out. Everyone was saying: ‘Oh look’, and they were always having a nice chat to them. The honeymoon is well and truly over and they are not being received as royalty any more. They have been told: ‘Listen, buddy, get over it. You have a job to do’. ‘Oh, right, okay’. It is not just driving around in cars and being feted and acknowledged at every function.
No, you have something to do as well. That is to attend to this question: has crime increased or not? Is government delivering the appropriate services or not? Is it making a difference? If you were running a business, are you heading in the right direction or not? If you are not, then you can put out media releases and con everyone who is working that everything is going hunky-dory. Everyone knows media releases and little stories you run around the place and promotion exercises you run may not mask the facts. Well, it certainly does not mask it. Media releases and glossy brochures wear thin after a while. You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of them all of the time.
So, is crime increasing or not? Going back to the member for Wanguri, he used to say in his heady days: ‘Why do not you get out there and talk to everybody?’ I have not heard him say that for a while now because I am getting out there and I am hearing things. I have worked in my own community for 18 years. I am not going around saying: ‘Tell me, is the government bad?’ ‘Oh yes’. No, I just want to know, I am interested in my community, I just want to play my part, and I am hearing stories. I ask the people the question.
I know for a fact that, as a politician, you can fall into the trap of asking a question, but not really listening to the answer. It is a bit of discipline to actually listen to what people say – people who you know, and people in the community. I am of the view that the community has formed a view that things are not as good as they have been. Statistics will demonstrate that. You can play with different lines. You can pick up one line and say: ‘Well, that has gone down’. But the disturbing trend that should alert anyone is that violent crime is increasing. That really troubles me, and it troubles many of us. We wonder why we are now living in a more violent society. The statistics show that. This is a need to which a service must be delivered to correct and change that.
If we just keep talking about numbers and statistics, and so on, we will have an argument about maths, basically, when really it is an argument about what is working and what is not, and the people who stand behind these statistics. To be a victim of a physical assault must be a horrible experience. I have not been; I do not like violence. I have witnessed it on one occasion as a young man, and I just did not know what to do. I saw a man belting his wife, and it was awful to see. When you see the figures, the crime stats comparison, you get out there, fluff yourselves up and issue a media release, and say: ‘This one is not as bad as that one, but from this period to that period, it is not as bad as they are saying’. That is really not the point because a physical assault reported is a physical assault on a person and there is a horrible story behind that.
What is being applied that will change that? That is the core of the matter. How can we fix that? How do we turn that around? Arguments about percentage figures will not fix it. I am of the view that the resourcing is there. The population has increased, and levels of resources to the Territory government have increased at a far greater rate. The core business of government is to deliver services. I am dissuaded of the view that the statistics – yes, round of applause; good on you, you have done what you said you would do, and that is to produce these statistics. You can get over that. You said you would do it and you did, so that is good. Magnanimous comments and the suggestion that we knew full well that the opposition may make mischief of these figures, not that you played any other dissimilar game when you were in opposition …
Mr Stirling: You never had statistics. Don’t tell lies.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: Madam Speaker, I find the dreadful inconsistency of the member for Nhulunbuy, who can feign disgust at certain words that may be used …
Mr Stirling: You never had statistics to comment on! Don’t make it up!
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr MILLS: All right, I will get to the point of it. Madam Speaker, I ask that he withdraw the word ‘lie’; I cannot stand hypocrisy.
Mr Stirling: Coming from the greatest hypocrite in the Chamber! Your government never had statistics to comment on!
Madam SPEAKER: Order, Deputy Chief Minister!
Mr Stirling: Don’t invent it!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr STIRLING: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Deputy Chief Minister, withdraw the last couple of paragraphs, I think.
Mr STIRLING: Madam Speaker, I withdraw unequivocally.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Mr MILLS: And if we are going to play that kind …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Blain, direct your comments through the Chair.
Mr MILLS: I was, Madam Speaker. I will. While we are at it, if we are going to play this game with the member for Nhulunbuy, I ask him to withdraw ‘grub’ as well.
Madam SPEAKER: He withdrew everything unreservedly.
Mr MILLS: All right.
Madam SPEAKER: I believe so.
Mr MILLS: I choose to believe so as well. Anyway, we are talking about what sits behind statistics and figures. These figures tell us that there needs to be a response that changes the direction of these figures. In fact, the member for Nhulunbuy illustrated the shallow nature of politics that is being played on the other side. They are more interested in perceptions. They are more interested in themselves and how they appear in the media than making a difference and stepping up to the plate and attending to some of the issues that are presented by the statistics, for example.
They need to get over the fact that they did what they said they would do. That is fine. I have had members over there fluffing themselves up and saying: ‘Look at me! We did this, we did that’. That is what you said you would do. You are elected to do something and you did it and a round of applause is needed. You are over the moon when someone makes a sandwich for you in the sandwich bar. You pay them. That is what your responsibility is. Get over it.
The issue is: are we turning these things around or not? I propose that we are not. Matters have been discussed. I have discussed issues. I know it has been quietly taken up during the by-election in Greatorex, but I would like to see a greater effort made in the issues of attending to juvenile offenders. It is probably harder work than issuing a media release with a smiling face that says: ‘Anti-gang laws target troublemakers’, which was done in 2006. Then we have the horrendous headlines of the weekend, and that is not the first time they have appeared. In the rural area last year, it was shocking to find those couple of occasions where parties got out of hand. Ambulances were stoned on the night. I just wonder about what is going on with our young people.
From opposition, we have talked about appropriate responses to deal with juvenile offenders. Members opposite would be aware that, as a result of a break-in, it caused me to think further that we needed to put something in the middle, between diversionary and between incarceration. There are some excellent programs out there that are attending to that very important area. I believe a greater effort could be made in that area. I notice something quietly occurred, as I said, at the Greatorex by-election. I hope that that is followed all the way through, not just for the effect of saying that we have done something but not really interested in the substance therein, but to really move substantially into this area and to allow those programs to receive government support and leadership.
It does not necessarily have to cost a lot of money, but it does provide the opportunity for government to play a leadership role. At meetings that I have attended on this matter in the Top End in recent times, and in past times in Palmerston, we were trying to convene some kind of coordination between agencies which all had a similar interest in youth intervention. They need a broker; someone to provide the leadership. That leadership comes from the Territory government in this instance. I will do whatever I can as a member of parliament but, ultimately, the responsibility falls on government to provide that facilitation and that leadership. Otherwise, you get the different agencies competing over pots of money, and that seems to be, unless properly moderated, a greater interest than dealing with the problem.
That is what governments are elected for. Sadly, this is a government that has largely been captured by the organisation, and they are really products of the organisation. They are given lines to speak, little screeds to read, and they are able to make little presentations, and put glossies into the letterboxes to create an impression. Their heart is not really in it, and people are seeing through it, because the figures are not going in the right direction. As the member for Wanguri has urged me, time and time again in the last Assembly, to get out there; I am still out there and I am hearing that this government is not able to keep on top of issues that it has responsibility to get on top of – crime.
I do not want to go to, as the previous speaker from the CLP, who led well with the explanation of the statistics and the issue of attrition, and the words that were used. The question of attrition has not been addressed. Worst of all, this fake horror on the other side when they talk about things that happened in the past, when we often heard – even yesterday – how the term ‘for presentation purposes only’ has been bandied around like the darkest sin that has ever occurred. I would have to say, the same sin has been committed time and time again. When you tell the community that there are going to be 200 additional policemen on the beat, that is simply ‘for presentation purposes only’. That is all it is; to create an impression.
All of that has been well established by the Opposition Leader in her presentation. What I would like to add is the need to go deeper and to attend to the issues that sit beneath the rising crime rates – the fact that this Territory government has core business to attend to, has the means to attend to it, and is not meeting that challenge. All the puffery, the glossies, the assertions, and the fake and feigned outrage from the other side, will make little difference to those to whom we have a responsibility to respond. That is the basic issue here. I am sure that does weigh on the hearts and minds of those who are in this Chamber and are involved in this matter.
Madam Speaker, I urge honourable members to support this motion.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I will be brief. The motion should be supported for obvious reasons. However, we in opposition are philosophical about our lot in life, and we know how twitchy and sensitive this government is in relation to just about everything.
I remember when Peter Toyne was Attorney-General, and when the crime figures were introduced. I will find the reference because I do have it here somewhere. On 26 November 2002, when he was sitting right where the former minister for Police now sits, he talked about the figures and how great it was for Labor to introduce them, etcetera. This was in response to a censure motion. He said in relation to the figures:
- We will all stand or fall on how the pattern emerges in the future.
The pattern and trends that are emerging are worthy of members’ falling – indeed, even the government.
We are used to government spin. We deal with it every day and there is nothing that is beneath them. We do not like it, because we think it is a pretty slippery way to operate, and we believe Territorians expect and deserve better. However, that is our lot and that is the lot of this government. Who would have thought that, a year ago today, the federal Leader of the Opposition would be well in front in the opinion polls and that things were not looking good for John Howard as Prime Minister? How quickly things can change.
This government, by its conduct, is putting people’s noses out of joint in almost every way imaginable. One significant way is its failures - and its consistent failures – in a range of areas relating to law and order. The Chief Minister should be condemned for the figures that we have seen. Peter Toyne said when they were introduced that you would stand or fall – profound words, as always, from the former Attorney-General.
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Blain, for his contribution. I have stated the terms of the motion. It is understood by government; we understand why they reject it, but we ask that the motion be put in any event.
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Regulation Relief Review
Advisory Committee - Establishment
Regulation Relief Review
Advisory Committee - Establishment
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move:
That this Assembly:
(a) establishes a Regulation Relief Review Advisory Committee (Advisory Committee) subordinate to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Standing Committee;
(i) to review all laws and regulations that impact on business in the Territory, including procurement practices and other process requirements of the Northern Territory government, and
(c) agrees to the membership of the committee to be made up of a chairperson nominated by the Leader of Government Business; a deputy chairperson to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition; two members nominated by business associations (made up of a representative from the Business Council, REINT, Chamber of Commerce, Cattlemen’s Association, Trucking Association, Construction Association, the MTAA, the HIA and any other organisation agreed to by the chair and deputy chair), of the Northern Territory; a consumer advocate agreed to by the chair and deputy chair of the committee and the Northern Territory Ombudsman;
It is pretty straightforward, Madam Speaker, and it is a concept that we promote. Territorians and the government will be hearing more in the future about what the CLP will propose to make it easier for businesses in the Territory. We promote the idea that businesses should be relieved of the shackles of over-regulation by government. Often when I speak to business men and women in the community, I am confronted, as I know are my colleagues, by the comment that there is too much regulation entrenched on our statute books and that they are a source of great irritation to those businessmen and women.
This committee will be about reviewing legislative instruments to make the process of doing business in the Territory easier and simpler. We should attend to our regulatory instruments and ask ourselves how many of these instruments are redundant in their operation and intent, and how many are unreasonable impediments to doing business with government. This is less about exploring what we know to be a problem in regulation but more an exercise in discovering what we do not know to be the problems.
Perhaps one of the best ways to highlight the issue is by looking at some examples of redundant regulatory instruments in the Northern Territory. There are some and I will go through some of them.
Regulation 11 of the Motor Vehicles Regulations details at some length about where to affix registration labels on windscreens, and that there is a requirement to have them fixed on the bottom left hand corner of the windscreen that would clearly be visible to a person standing 6 m away. Many hire car companies do not adhere to this requirement because they affix the label to the rear passenger window. I can imagine there will be a time when somebody decides that this is a breach of the regulations and then the company will have to get all of their labels renewed. This regulation was from a time, as I understand it, when it was necessary to display labels because they were the only way the registration could be checked by inspectors and police without a manual search of a registration register. Since the early 1980s, those details have been available on computer and easily and conveniently checked by a quick radio call. The need to display the labels so clearly has been somewhat diminished by technology. Regulation 16 of the Motor Vehicles Regulations is simply redundant and should not be on the statute books because it refers to a defunct tax.
Another example is section 26 of the Absconding Debtors Act, an act I used to deal with when I was practising. The Absconding Debtors Act has a provision that a debt of $40 000 or more must be pursued through the Supreme Court. Clearly, that amount is not what it used to be and legal fees would probably make that ceiling unappealing for any potential claimant.
A reading of section 75 of the Summary Offences Act also highlights possibly redundant legislation which could still catch people out. I was not aware of this until I was advised recently that it is a provision of the act that on a public thoroughfare it is an offence to be, and I quote:
- … being the driver of any waggon, cart, or dray of any kind not drawn by horses properly driven with reins, rides upon any such waggon, cart, or dray, not having some person on foot to guide the same; …
I note that the legislation is so old that the original drafter’s spelling of ‘waggon’ uses what might be described as the Middle English spelling of wagon with a double ‘g’. Surely the issue is now so remote from the reality that the regulation should be removed from the statute books. If there is an issue about the movement of a wagon then perhaps the Traffic Act should be left to deal with the matter. The other shortcoming of that instrument is that it could not achieve what is attempts to achieve because of its paltry penalty of $200. Clearly, it was a serious fine once when you consider that, attendant to that law, a member of the police force has instant powers of arrest without warrant for anybody breaching that law.
The modern business context demands that the regulatory environment serves business, while balancing businesses needs with the needs of the public in general. I know that compliance costs with the requirements of government are a problem and we have heard a number of stories and some of them have been quite concerning from a range of business men and women. There are many legislative instruments such as tax regulations that incur compliance costs for business. Payroll tax is one example. Perhaps it is time that ways of lowering those compliance costs can be explored.
The demands of government in relation to the Bellamack development are causing many potential developers great anger because the government is demanding to receive a slice of the profits rather than simply selling the land at UCV to the approved developer. This places government in an odd position and gives it a vested interest in keeping prices high, so we are told, because it becomes an increased source of income. We have heard that on several occasions from people who come to us. The authorisation for the minister to demand such contractual arrangements used to be found in the Contracts Act. Perhaps business would want to recommend changes to that act which has been unchanged since self-government, I am advised, to prevent government from engaging in commercial arrangements that place the government in a position of being in conflict with their own social responsibilities such as ensuring affordable land.
One of the most contentious areas of government in the business community is procurement. This area still rankles many people in many ways. It is heavily regulated through subordinate legislation and one would hope that the process is a fair and reasonable process. However, it remains a source of unending irritation for many. After the experience with the solar panels at Kings Canyon, there are many who think that the process is compromised. Contract splitting by departments to slide under reporting thresholds is also a common complaint.
Clearly, with the infrastructure spending of this government, procurement is something many people would like to have input into in relation to regulations. The amount of paperwork that stands in the way of process also causes people to complain and, as we know, complain bitterly. Compliance with the procurement requirements are substantial and many businesses just cannot afford the time or the money to meet those requirements. These requirements are not always for major projects either.
Although it is by way of a slight digression, there is a raft of other issues that upset business men and women. The definition of a local when it comes to local business is more observed in the breach than it is in the compliance. For example, SOCOM is listed by DCIS as a local business, but my advice is that many people take the view that the office is not really local. Everyone knows that SOCOM is Sheila O’Sullivan, that great Labor friend from Victoria. It has won the contract against local bidders to sell the government’s middle schools policy and, more recently, the government’s local government reform plan. We were put on to this by someone not so long ago: if you look up the White Pages, it has a listed post office address and when you ring the business, as someone from my office did recently, a man picks up the phone and says, ‘Hello, it’s Damien’, and only after some prompting does he identify himself as the local SOCOM representative. Who, we ask, are these people trying to kid?
It is a concern for many people. It may even be the case that business asks for laws to be created so that the government keeps its promises, for instance. For example, the no fee to access our parks, as my colleagues, the members for Greatorex and Katherine, have been concerned about in particular, given the complaint from a tourism operator in Central Australia who gets slugged because he goes into the parks.
It is intended that this committee takes the same subordinate role to the Subordinate Legislation committee that the Statehood Steering Committee takes to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. That is relatively straightforward. However, this has a limited time to do its consultation with business and report back to the House with a list of offending regulations to business with a view to improving how business is done.
It is intended to take evidence and report as soon as possible. We suggest that it is useful and will give government insights that it does not currently have. The concept is straightforward. It will exist for a period not exceeding eight months and, hopefully, it will be a useful tool for business to communicate what they need us to do as their elected representatives. It does not need a long-winded speech to make clear what is intended by this process. It could only be well received by businesses which are trying to make their way in our highly regulated community.
Madam Speaker, we have spoken at some length with the Chamber of Commerce about this proposal and it was met with a level of enthusiasm. We have talked to a range of business people. I know what the next speaker is going to say, because we know that ministerial staffers have been ringing industry groups today asking: ‘Did they speak to you?’ You would think that the government might be doing a bit more for the Northern Territory than instructing their staff to ring up all and sundry and ask: ‘Have they talked to you?’ I will tell you what we have done with this. We did speak to the Chamber of Commerce, and we have spoken to a number of representatives throughout the business community. Not all of them hold the position that you people have tried to ring through to today. Of course, as with every policy proposal that is a significant, innovative, creative policy proposal, we will then go through our processes of engaging with the relevant stakeholders. So we can knock that one on the head before you blokes start to get stuck into it.
This is an innovative proposal. If the opposite speaker stands up and says that business has no gripes with the amount of regulations that cause difficulty to business men and women in the Territory, then, to quote a phrase that is oft used by members opposite, ‘you got to get out more’. If they have stopped ringing your office to complain about the difficulty of doing business with government, then heaven help us, frankly, because you really should know.
I feel certain that the government will reject this proposal because that is the form of this increasingly arrogant and mischievous government. We in the opposition take our responsibilities very seriously. It is important for the opposition to come in with proposals, to ask government, in this place as well as outside, why you have not done this, you should be doing this, and so on.
We believe, as do our fellow Territorians, that this government is resting on their laurels, that they are tired, they are irritable with one another, which is abundantly clear, and that the Chief Minister is more interested in watching her back than getting on with the job of governing for all Territorians. Well, if this mob on the other side does not want to do it any more, call an election and off we go. Such is the depth of animosity towards you people - and by God, you have deserved each and every bit of it - that it will be an incredibly interesting election result. Member for Greatorex, was the Labor vote 16% at Greatorex by-election? Unprecedented. So if you people think that you are doing a darn good job, have a look at yourself because you are not ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Ms CARNEY: And you, why you are still sitting here, I have no idea. You should go fishing.
With those comments, Madam Speaker, I look forward to so many members on the other side participating in this debate, participating in robust debate. We have talked about robust debate earlier today in the Chamber. I look forward to hearing from government as to why it is that they are doing such an outstanding job that they would vote against this motion.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I am just relieved that she has finished that load of drivel. To stand there and call for an election on the basis of – well, the greatest swing in history, the newly-elected member for Greatorex ...
Mr Conlan: No, the greatest lost! The greatest loss in history!
Mr STIRLING: Have a look – 16% of the voters, I got bigger than that myself in 1997. Go and have a look at the figures, you will find much bigger swings than that throughout Northern Territory history. You cannot come in here and make things up on the spot like the …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr STIRLING: … because he thinks people do not have a memory – a corporate memory around this place. The member for Greatorex, unfortunately, is taking a lead straight out of the member for Blain’s book, where he comes in here, makes outrageous sorts of generalised claims about all things, claiming to know everything, and they are simply not true. The greatest swing in Northern Territory political history – 16%!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Please pause, minister.
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Greatorex said no such thing.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Please continue.
Mr STIRLING: Well, if it was not the member for Greatorex, it was the member for Araluen. I put her in the same category. That makes three out of the four of them prone to grandiose exaggerations.
The biggest swing that occurred, of course, was in 2005, I would have thought - the biggest swing.
Madam Speaker, despite the difficulty, I did listen closely to what the Leader of the Opposition had to say this afternoon. I find the best possible way of finding out what the business community thinks of any particular difficulty they might have, or any proposal that we might want to put forward, is to talk to them. It is no great secret there. You arrange meetings, you engage with them directly across the table, talk to them directly - do it all the time. It is an essential part of the Treasurer’s job. It is an essential part of most of ministers in this government. If business operators have any concerns, as they do from time to time, they ring. They contact my office, and they contact other minister’s offices. I have had regular calls from the business world about issues of concern, and asking for consideration and action around particular matters affecting them.
The member for Araluen may not be aware, but this government does have a range of very effective forums already in place where the business community has the opportunity across the table in direct face-to-face with ministers to put forward their ideas and discuss them. For example: the minister for Business with the Northern Territory Business Council Biannual Forums with all major business and industry groups; and the Chief Minister’s Business Round Table began in 2002. There have been seven so far in 2007; a total of 54 across the Territory since that initiative first began. More than 700 business and industry representatives have taken part in those business round tables. I have been a regular attendee for a long time as Minister for Employment, Education and Training, because many of the issues coming across the table from business and industry were around training, traineeships, apprenticeships, that type of issue. I have attended regularly also, in my capacity as Treasurer and supporting the Chief Minister and the minister for Business, at these round tables. I have seen firsthand what a terrific success they have been and how much they have been appreciated by the business world in being able to put their issues directly to ministers. As Treasurer, I hold quarterly meetings with a range of representatives from different sectors to hear directly from them what is happening on the ground in their particular business and industry.
All these meetings and forums exist specifically to give government an insight into what challenges the business community are facing in the Territory, and to give business that direct opportunity to put those concerns. Alongside that direct interaction and communication, we have implemented the Competition Impact Analysis Process developed as an essential component of COAG National Competition Policy commitments. It is a strict review process to remove any unnecessary or unduly burdensome business regulation. Under that National Competition Policy, all jurisdictions are required to review existing legislation that restricts business conduct and market competition to ensure that the benefits of such restrictions to the community outweigh the costs of the introduction of it.
Governments are also required to institute formal frameworks for the review of all new and amending legislation. That has recently been even further strengthened by COAG through the National Reform Agenda. This agenda requires all governments to adhere to strengthen legislative review principles and processes, including an increased focus on cost-benefit analysis for new legislation aimed at reducing business red tape. In response to these commitments, the Territory’s Competition Impact Analysis Process was reviewed in 2007 and new principles and guidelines were developed. These new arrangements further increase the quality and rigour of reviews to ensure benefits of legislation outweigh costs and, again, to reduce inefficient business compliance burdens.
That is good news for Territory business. It is good news for the Territory economy. Key components of those new arrangements will be the annual reviews of business red tape as well as the development of formal regulation impact analysis training courses for officials.
In relation to the government’s procurement practices, there is a range of measures in place to specifically ensure appropriate consultation with the business community. The Procurement Review Board reviews government’s procurement processes and includes representatives of the Northern Territory Industry Capability Network, an industry-based company which promotes and supports local suppliers. The Government Procurement Council enables the private sector to have direct involvement in government procurement processes. The government also makes good use of the Procurement Liaison Officer, an independent industry contact located in the Department of Business, Economic and Regional Development.
We understand, as a government, that modern, professional businesses need confidence in a transparent procurement process. Modern business does not want to return to the old days when contracts were awarded on the basis of political patronage not merit, and it was commonly referred to as a ‘silver circle’. If you had your membership to the silver circle under the previous government, you did very well in the Northern Territory. If you were a new business on the scene or dared come from interstate to try to set up in the Northern Territory and you did not have entree to the silver circle, well bad luck. You did not get government work unless you were a long-term Territory business and contributing to the government of the day.
That is why, when we came to government, there were so many complaints about procurement because there was a whole range of business out there that thought: ‘Thank God, at least we will get a fair crack at government work’.
That is why we established the Government Procurement Council in 2003. The council’s terms of reference are to provide the minister responsible for procurement with sound advice and recommendations with respect to government procurement policy and practice; the effectiveness of such policies and practices; and the implementation of future policies and improvements. The Government Procurement Council has representations from key private sector industry bodies including the Chamber of Commerce, the Motor Traders Association, Territory Construction Association, and Unions NT. The council also includes representation from government through Northern Territory Treasury, the Department of Planning and Infrastructure, and the Department of Corporate and Information Services.
The council has played a significant role in procurement reform processes since its inception. For example, the council provided considerable input to and stewardship of the introduction of the new procurement directions in March 2006. The proposed motion, if passed, would simply duplicate the excellent work already been done through all these processes. However, there is always more that the government can do to minimise business regulation and improve the process of procurement without pushing undue expense on the taxpayer in the process.
I preface an amendment, Madam Speaker, to acknowledge the strong relationship established by the Martin government and the Territory business community and requesting that the Public Accounts Committee receive a reference to report to the Assembly on any perceived unnecessary regulatory burdens on business. I have copies of the amendment for members of the Chamber.
I move - That all words after ‘that’ in the motion be omitted and insert in their stead:
The Assembly –
- (1) notes the strong engagement established between the Martin Labor government and the business community in the Territory through regular consultation with industry groups; and
- (a) the Northern Territory Business Council forums with the Business minister;
- (b) the Business Round Table meetings with the Chief Minister;
- (c) business sector breakfasts with the Treasurer; and
- (d) Land Industry Forums with the Planning minister.
- (2) notes the Labor government has implemented, under COAG National Competition Policy commitments, strict review processes to reduce or remove inefficient business compliance regulation; and
(3) requests a reference be provided to the Public Accounts Committee to examine and report to the Assembly on business concerns about any unnecessary regulatory burdens, while ensuring the cost of establishing a large, specialist subcommittee is not incurred by Territory taxpayers.
Madam SPEAKER: Could we please have that distributed fairly quickly by the parliamentary officers?
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, the amendment is a little surprising. On one hand, it confirms the greater interest that government has in protecting its image, at the same time acknowledging that the opposition has quite correctly identified the necessity to assess levels of regulation that may be surplus to requirements. On the other hand, there is something that is a little offensive in it, in that they want to ensure that they do not get any criticism, so the crafting of the words is flattering to government but, at the same time, acknowledging that there is a problem that has been responded to by the Territory opposition.
I am taking time now to read the amendment. As has been mentioned often, the request to get out there and have a listen - be under no illusion, members opposite, that does occur and increasingly. I am sorry to rain on your positive and glorious view of oneself, but there are increasing levels of disappointment and concern almost to the point of fear about being overtly critical of government.
The member for Nhulunbuy can stand and go on a stream of argument. I know when he takes his glasses off, puts them down and then turns away - off he goes. He starts talking about some terrible things that happened in the past and is blind to the reality that very similar accusations are now being raised about his own government. I have taken a leaf, as I have said, from previous times when the member for Wanguri has told me to go out there and have a listen. I know friends of mine who are in business, who would prefer me not to speak to them in their workplace because messages get sent back and it makes it a little more challenging for them. That has not happened on one occasion; it happens often. There are members of the business community who would like to speak openly and frankly, and feel constrained in that manner. That is the reality and I am not making that up.
The way this organisation operates, that sort of information may very rarely pierce the heart of this organisation, whereas they get to know that there is another view out there, a contrary view to the one in which you occupy yourself, in that everyone loves you - not that I think that you would probably be thinking that - but you are doing a damn good job. You are out there, you have these little committees and groups organised and everyone is having a real good time, coming to meet the minister and having a listen, take a note of that and, afterwards, write them a letter. The novelty is wearing off a bit because …
Mr Warren: Why don’t you just stay in opposition where you should be? You don’t want to be a minister, you don’t want to be part of government? Stay there.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order, member for Goyder!
Mr MILLS: I tell you what: I would not mind if they let the reins loose on this outfit over there. There are 19 members sitting there, most of them on their little computers playing patience or whatever ...
Mr Warren: Well, you are damned by your own words.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am sitting here working. I am sure all the other members are working on their laptops, too. It is a silly inference by the member for Blain. I ask that he withdraw it.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Can you please try to stay to the motion as much as possible, member for Blain?
Mr MILLS: As much as possible, but as I understand the standing orders, I have room to move as we find during Question Time when people wander everywhere but the issue. I will. In fact, it is connected; that being I would really like to see - and this a digression but it feeds on the idea of how important it would be to allow honourable members to be actively and genuinely involved in these debates. If government would take that firm control that it has over its own organisation, that it would allow backbenchers to be involved in these debates, just as the same ones like to control the agenda and create the impression of ‘Look, we are consulting business, we have this committee, that committee, this letter, that letter and this sort of follow up’. It is creating an impression which is more important than creating a difference, therefore, you have your backbenchers all constrained.
It is General Business Day, you have tons of talent around you. Why not trust them to get up and talk about some things and be actively involved in the real business of the Chamber, rather than control and manage, and organise your own organisation, the way you are trying to organise the Northern Territory, while you are trying to respond to motions that are put up in good faith, because the greatest part of your concern is, ‘how will we appear?’ We have to manage it so that we will put up a motion that says: ‘Oh look, we are fantastic, we have done all these things and, yes, we will have a look at that thing that may be of concern to business, which is regulation’. Well, if that is the end of it, if that is the result of this, well that is a good outcome.
However, in all that you have said, member for Nhulunbuy, I hear once again that you are reactive rather than proactive. You wait for someone to suggest something, then you massage it and you craft it as your own and then put it out there. Well, I do not frankly care. I will consult with my colleagues on this matter, that you are more interested in public relations than quality leadership, that you are more interested in creating an impression than a difference.
The substance of the motion that is being presented is a good one. It is one that business would sincerely welcome - that proactive response to the increased burden that falls upon small business operators in particular. Do not think for a moment that all those carefully crafted little gatherings that you have is the sum total of all the advice that flows? It can be quite intimidating, and when it is carefully orchestrated with the primary purpose of creating an impression, then you probably get the result that you have designed your operation to produce anyway, which is, ‘Look, we have consulted. We have had a listen and here is the feedback’. I get the feedback as well. Anyway, I do not want to bore you with that. Members opposite and, sadly, one of the more senior members - the most senior member here - is more interested, as well as the Chief Minister, in personal attacks and insults than attending more to the spirit of these motions and legislation. They would rather get into the lower level business of attacking and abusing people. I never find much comfort in that.
I urge honourable members to support the motion as it has been presented to the Chamber. It must be really difficult for you, because it does come from the opposition, so it cannot be any good. This is General Business Day. Is there anything wrong with it? Have a look at it. Get up and have a talk about it, rather than mumbling through your moustache. Get up and have a talk about it and tell me what your concern about this is ...
Mr Warren: If you produce a decent motion …
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: Tell me what your concern is. I have not heard it. I only hear the official party line. We do not hear from anybody else except by mumbling little interjections across the Chamber. So, what is this? Is this a parliament or is this some sort of party operation where you are not allowed to speak or think, except to slam the opposition whenever they get up to talk, because whatever they talk about cannot be right. You cannot read; you cannot think; you cannot speak except whatever the top dog tells you to say or do. That is pretty sad.
I urge honourable members to support the motion as being put forward by the opposition in this parliament, and I will leave it at that. Perhaps there are going to be other members who will jump to their feet and have a good old talk about it.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I have listened to some of the debate on this so-called Regulation Relief Review Advisory Committee, and I admit this is probably the first time that I have heard of it, because it was only introduced last night. I also read, with interest, what the Treasurer has put in his amendment. There are some meeting of minds to some extent.
In paragraph 3 of the amendment put forward by the Treasurer, he is, to some extent saying, yes, we should perhaps be looking at this. In his case, he is referring it to the Public Accounts Committee. He is arguing this would reduce the cost of establishing a large specialist subcommittee, and this may be worthwhile. On the other hand, the CLP is looking at something similar. It is asking it to be subordinate to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs standing committee, but setting that up as an independent committee which would have to be paid and have travelling allowances and fees duly met.
I ask that if both sides of parliament are saying they think the setting up of some sort of committee to look at whether there is any unnecessary regulatory burdens - and the CLP says to ‘review all laws and regulations that impact on business in the Territory, including procurement practices and other process requirements of the Northern Territory government, and recommend removal and reform of these regulations and processes’. If that could be done through the Public Accounts Committee, we could work our way through that, and that would be a beneficial approach.
I know there has been a bit of argy-bargy between both sides but, when you look at the amendment and what the opposition is putting forward, there is room for a meeting of minds on this issue. You would have to work out who would be put on this subcommittee if it is the government’s proposal, or the committee if it is the opposition’s proposal. The opposition has put forward a list of people whom they think should be on it, and that could be open for discussion. There is the Cattlemen’s Association. You might say: ‘If we have them, why should I not have the Horticultural Association?’ If you have the Trucking Association, you might have some people say: ‘Why do we not have the bus industry because they are involved in tourism?’ There would need to be a lot of debate about the makeup of this particular committee.
If the opposition was to put this forward as something the government would pick up, they would need to look at what the cost would be. One of the arguments from this side of parliament is that we have too many committees and we get bogged down in them. What would be of benefit is to see how this committee would work; what would the cost of operating it be; how many times would it meet; if it would have a limited life basically; or would it sit for two days in Darwin, two days in Katherine, two days in Tennant Creek, two days in Alice Springs, and come up with a report. That may be enough to do what it is trying to do. If you look carefully at both the amendment and what the government is putting forward, there is a possibility we could come up with something good.
I ask the opposition when summing up to say why they believe this committee would come under Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Perhaps their argument is that, looking at different procurement practices and various laws and regulations, that that is the right committee to do that. One could equally argue that the Public Accounts Committee, which has a broader scope, might be the committee this would better work under.
Madam Speaker, in summing up, even though there is a bit of difference of opinion, there seems to be some agreement that there should be a committee of some sort which would look at unnecessary regulatory burdens on business, and that would be good. Perhaps, after all this, the opposition and the government can get together with business and work on something both sides would agree, and be of benefit to business in the Northern Territory.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I am also talking to the amendment, and will deal with that first.
Government, I assume, has deliberately not understood the intent of the motion. So be it. Arrogance brings with it all sorts of things and deliberately twisting or not understanding things is such an example.
We have in paragraph (1) the self-serving comments - we saw it in an earlier motion today - made by the author of this document. Paragraph (2), well, I am not quite sure what that has to do with the motion, but there you go. Paragraph (3) is interesting, and I am certain it is mischievous. I do not think it is driven by stupidity or at least I would like to think not. The Public Accounts Committee does all sorts of things but this is not what our motion intended. The motion intended and proposes that a number of experts, heads of peak bodies, in the Northern Territory, work in a bipartisan way with all of these organisations and the representatives who would be on the committee, to ensure that we could tackle some of the impediments that are facing business men and women in the Northern Territory. Not an objectionable or an offensive suggestion. But what does this government want? It says its Public Accounts Committee to examine and report to the Assembly on business concerns, etcetera. Well, is that good enough? We do not think so.
What is wrong with having a specialist committee with specialist people on it to advise the committee? I do not know who from the government is on the Public Accounts Committee these days. I am not sure whether any of them have had business experience, not that that precludes them from having views in relation to business matters. Would it not be best to have representatives from organisations like the Chamber of Commerce, the Trucking Association, the Construction Association, and so on? We think that is best.
We know the motion will fail. We do not support the amendment for the reasons I have outlined. I invite members to vote in support of the opposition’s motion, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: There are two motions before the Chair. The first is the motion as moved by the Leader of the Opposition. The second is an amendment to the motion as moved by the Treasurer. I will put the amendment first.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
MOTION
Board of Inquiry into Alleged Crimes by
Bob Collins - Establishment
Board of Inquiry into Alleged Crimes by
Bob Collins - Establishment
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I move that this Assembly establish a Board of Inquiry to determine if there are any further victims of sexual crimes allegedly committed by Bob Collins, and that such Board of Inquiry be headed by a former judge of a supreme court or person of a similar repute and stature.
Madam Speaker, this is difficult business and, as I have mentioned earlier today, sometimes there are, unfortunately, difficult matters for us to attend to. It seems to be a day of it. I am talking about issues that strike their origins from way beneath the surface, and they are issues of principle and ethics and the like. I have to say that a forum like the parliament of the Northern Territory is the right place for these matters to be discussed. I still hold the view that this parliament should be a parliament where people can individually weigh these matters and consider them, where members of the parliament could rise and talk as these matters strike them and be unconstrained by the group view.
I would like that to occur because that is where you end up with the most creative and the most helpful solutions to difficult problems. When we have a system where there is an organised response it reduces the level of creativity that is brought to bear on the possibility of creating a solution that has the effect of bringing about restoration and closure.
I have approached this matter from the beginning and have drawn upon my own experience, particularly in leadership within a community; that being a school community. If a similar matter were to arise in a school community, I could not allow the matter to be dealt with in the manner being proposed by government as determined through their response in Question Time. I am compelled to continue and go further, as difficult and unpleasant as it may be. If the words that have been spoken in here that have been the cause for our actions are to mean anything, then I would like to hear the genuine response to these matters because it is a difficult issue.
I find it particularly difficult as I know many of the people involved. I know there is a great likelihood that the position which has been taken could be one which would be attacked as political opportunity. No, not at all. There needs to be a move forward. There is a saying ‘Because crime hurts, justice must heal’. At a conference I attended last week, I heard it said again and again. There is a world of difference between a legal system and a justice system.
A legal system, when you analyse it down to its bare essence, I do not think anyone would disagree that it is in the business of apportioning blame. Once it is impossible to apportion blame through the legal system, an adversarial system, then that is the end of the matter, so some will say; a legal mind will say that. Some will say in this case it is a convenient reality, but I do not think it is a truth because if crime does hurt, then justice must bring healing, and we have a part to play in that.
That is why I bring this motion which is general, specifically so because it raises a threshold question. I will endeavour within my time to propose some terms of reference which could be used to go down the path which I believe is necessary for us to proceed down in order to get to the place where many of us want us to go. Being elected to parliament presents us with challenges, and an inconvenient truth which we have to face at times. If only running government was a superficial exercise of trying to manage things. To really lead and manage, and to take your community somewhere, you are going to have to tend to the deeper issues, and to let people know there has been courage exhibited.
I make it clear from the outset that this motion is not about either damaging or protecting the reputation of the deceased. What I am calling for is an inquiry to find out if there are other people in our community who have had a negative sexual experience with Bob Collins. There is a reason, and at this point I draw heart from some of the words which have been spoken by members opposite during their maiden speeches, and during debates yesterday: active concern for victims and the vulnerable.
It is important to say that Bob Collins is not a guilty man. At the time of his death, there were 21 charges arising out of allegations of five people, as well as a matter of 54 images of child pornography which had been located on his computer at home. Those charges remain untested, and will remain so - therefore, not guilty. That is not the issue.
I am calling for an inquiry into the conduct of Bob Collins. In calling for an inquiry into the conduct of Mr Collins, I have not engaged in an attempt to find him guilty after the fact. My focus is clearly on the living. I know that there are outstanding issues that need to be addressed. The silence so far has been deeply troubling, and I find this silence too difficult to bear and it, in fact, hangs over this place.
On page 121 of the Little Children are Sacred report, the observation is made - applicable here. The literature is clear on this matter: a proportion of those who are abused as children will go on to commit sexual offences. Many offenders, when interviewed, will relate as part of their own history episodes of sexual abuse with them as the victim. According to Tom E Lewis, Bob Collins was in possession of two photo albums that had Polaroid photographs of abuse victims. If that is true, then there may well be many other victims out there with the potential to become abusers.
On 22 June last year, the Chief Minister said: ‘We have to break through the fear …’, there is fear, ‘… the shame’, there is shame, ‘… and the silence we see about child sex abuse in our communities’. Indeed, shame, fear and silence. It is time for, not just the Chief Minister but all members of this place, to live up to those words and to take the risk of discovering that the one whom I held in certain regard and others do also, may not hold the same position now. That is why it is difficult.
I have assessed this in my own personal outlook. If this was someone as close as you could get to me - a brother or a father, my own - would my position change? I have had to ask myself that question. If it was someone close to me, very close to me, would my position in parliament change as a result of that? I venture to say it would not.
All of us must support this motion if we are going to be true to the Chief Minister’s words about breaking the silence. It is not - and I repeat it again it is not - about trapping the Chief Minister or the government. It is not about the Chief Minister or the government. It must be so hard to accept that one who has been revered had serious - very gravely serious - moral flaws, but further to that, as a consequence had a profound impact, potentially and allegedly, on many others/ However, we may not find out, we may not know.
This is not about our feelings and our sensitivities. It is about protecting children. We should not be afraid to find the truth, no matter how ugly the truth is, because an ugly truth is easier to stomach than a denied truth when it comes to matters of such importance. Shining a light on this issue is more important than any of us in this place because, if we bury this issue, then we run the risk of burying the truth with Mr Collins. That is not the message to send to other victims if, indeed, there are other victims. It is our duty to take hard choices when we take on this job. I appreciate this must be one of the hardest choices I can ask friends of the late Mr Collins to make. I have absolutely no pleasure at all in asking this of them.
Three of the five victims, Tom E Lewis, Ben Helwend, and Damien Anderson, accused Mr Collins of committing sexual crimes against them. There are at least two other people who have given statements to police also claiming to be victims of Mr Collins. The three who have identified themselves publicly have done so because they need to be believed. Consider the risk that a victim takes when they submit to the court process - the adversarial court process. If, for whatever reason, the accused is found innocent, then the victim has lost a substantial gamble. It is a shattering experience to bare yourself so completely only to have your testimony rejected. Consider that. These are delicate matters for anyone who understands sexual abuse and the impact this has upon a person. I suspect that this not a gamble that any of these men who have been mentioned here took lightly. We must respect, understand and honour that risk with a signal that they can at least have some forum to state their case in the hope that some good will come of it for them and, possibly, for others.
The message needs to go out to other victims, if there are any, to say: ‘Come and be heard. Make your statement and help begin the process of cleaning up the mess’. Sadly, because there is a proven correlation between victims in the past becoming offenders in the future - no one can deny that – we cannot but look. We need to. None of this is to say that all victims become offenders, but there is certainly a proven increase incidence. We must assume that of the five who have spoken to police, that they are telling a genuine story and the events that they relate actually took place.
I have spoken to other victims of child sexual assault and know that the greatest desire for them is the desire to be believed. Yes, they need more than an 1800 number. Not because there is a need to find Mr Collins guilty; that would have been for a court to determine before his death. However, if what they said is true and being believed is an instrumental step in preventing victims becoming offenders, there may be other men out there who would become predators because there has been no intervention and, for them, there has been no day of truth. I have always believed that where the safety of children is concerned, we must err on the side of the caution.
People have already formed their opinions about Mr Collins, and this sort of inquiry will not do much to persuade people of thinking any less or more of him. That is another issue. However, if we can stop a person from turning themselves from a victim into an offender then, for the sake of our children, we must make every effort to find them and offer intervention - offer assistance or help if it is needed. If there are other people who have been subject to the alleged sexual conduct of Mr Collins, then they will probably have children of their own by now. It is those hitherto unidentified children I want to see protected.
The Little Children are Sacred report shows how insipid this issue is. Simply because the accused person was of a high profile, there is no reason to abandon doing all that is needed to protect kids into the future. Indeed, the message should be that nobody will be protected, no matter how important they may be. No stone should be left unturned. We need a person of eminent standing to cast this net. Probably no person in the Territory has the required distance from Mr Collins to do the job without fear or favour, but whoever is selected must be seen to be above reproach.
The motion itself is not prescriptive and is deliberately expressed in an ‘in principle’ fashion. Clearly, if government was to agree to go down this path, some form of terms of reference would have to be agreed upon. There are two ways to do this. First, terms of reference can be established now and by way of amendment to this motion; or second, terms of reference could be established outside of this place and passed by way of motion next week in this House.
Some references that this side of the House would like to see as important, would include the following:
1. a full and discretionary power of investigation for the inquiry head, including a power of subpoena and a reference to refer matters to the DPP;
I made attempts to speak - granted it was at short notice - to the Attorney-General prior to this debate, to see whether there was an interest in approaching the matter of terms of reference and how we could deal with this. Unfortunately, I was unable to have such a meeting. I trust that the spirit of this motion is understood – that the purpose of it is clear. This inquiry should be as wide as it needs to be and there should be power to subpoena evidence and witnesses. I will support any legislative change on urgency for this to occur.
I will say again that I have not deliberately described terms of reference for the inquiry because it needs to be at arm’s-length from us all. Importantly, I will say again, this is not about us. It is about potential victims and offenders. I genuinely feel this appeal to members in this place to support this motion for all the reasons that have been outlined is simply the right thing to do. To do anything less would be contrary to the moral courage required to provide leadership in our community.
I urge members to support the motion.
Mr STIRLING (Justice and Attorney-General): Mr Deputy Speaker, the events surrounding this matter have been traumatic for all parties involved: the alleged victims on one side, and the family of Bob Collins on the other. I think it is proved that over several years, a huge effort - and meticulous and thorough effort - has been made by relevant authorities to ensure that whatever steps were needed to be taken to ensure justice was brought to both sides, were taken. Those steps were, indeed, taken.
That is, I guess, the fundamental operating principle of our legal and judicial system. It is a principle, of course, underpinning the work of the police. I believe they are as good as you will find anywhere in Australia. I commend them for their work on what has been a very difficult matter – as are all cases involving such alleged offences of this nature.
It is clear, and I think for the member for Blain the penny has dropped and he does understand now, with the death of Mr Collins, the legal process is at an end and it can no longer determine guilt or innocence of Mr Collins. It is a fundamental principle of the legal system in Australia that guilt or innocence can only be determined in circumstances where all parties have the opportunity to present their case.
This motion seeks to establish a board of inquiry to determine if any further victims of Mr Collins alleged crimes exist. Originally, what was unclear to me from the motion was what the member for Blain would be hoping to ultimately achieve through that inquiry. That is why the process of hearing a person out can often fill in the gaps. I did glean a bit more from the member for Blain in his explanation behind the motion he had on the books.
I trust the member for Blain recognises now the fundamental difficulty, and in his remarks he has recognised that it is impossible to posthumously determine any guilt or innocence on Mr Collins’ part. Any such attempt, of course, is incompatible with the inherent principles of the Australian judicial system. It is just not possible to continue criminal proceedings or inquiry against a person after they have died. An accused person has to be able to provide instructions in his or her defence. The Prime Minister, no less, recognised this when he was asked about determining the truth or otherwise of the charges. He simply noted:
- I can’t make a judgment. Nobody can. The man is dead and you will never know.
On that point, he agrees with the Northern Territory Acting Solicitor-General and Director of Public Prosecutions, both of whom have provided the same advice to me.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the more sustainable element of the member for Blain’s motion in using the inquiry is that area of attempting to locate further possible victims to assist them with any trauma experienced. The Northern Territory police have conducted very lengthy and exhaustive investigations in relation to all of these matters before laying any charges. There has been, subsequently, very widespread media coverage, and there has been another alleged victim come forward. I do not think anyone can say that every alleged victim has been identified. Police are confident that they did everything in the depth of the investigation. They have done everything possible to identify alleged victims. They have done everything they could in bringing possible complainants to the trial stage. They have provided all of the support, advice and assistance to them in preparation for trial. I might add that the Witness Assistance Service would also have been involved at that level, advising people of their rights in relation to Crime Victims Compensation which can provide financial assistance. It can certainly provide counselling and support for victims to help them through trauma and difficulties they may have in their personal life as a result of being victims of crime.
The cessation of criminal action in this matter in no way precludes a victim of a violent or sexual offence from coming forward and seeking assistance under the Northern Territory’s comprehensive Victims of Crime Support scheme. The legal matter may have come to an end; that does not preclude in any way the right of victims so far identified or, indeed, any alleged victims not identified to this point, in coming forward and identifying themselves as such and seeking support through the Crime Victims Services Unit to avail themselves of those layers of support available under that scheme. They have to make that decision themselves. Those identified who were supported in the steps to getting the case to trial would know this. They would have been in personal contact with the Witness Assistance Service; no question about that, that is the role of the Witness Assistance Service, the role that they play in preparation of people going to court on these matters.
However, it is up to the person. Any victim, whether they have been identified in the police investigation to date or not, can make that decision, their own personal decision, to come forward and apply to receive those elements of financial assistance, counselling and support. Counselling services are available across the Territory and are overseen by the Department of Justice’s Crime Victims Services Unit. I have talked with the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Justice to ensure that counsellors are fully briefed and aware of the particular issues and concerns of people potentially coming forward regarding this matter.
Assistance and support are available immediately through the Crime Victims Services Unit. They are able to quickly set up free, professional, counselling services as required, and they are able to help a person with any other issues in their life. Ultimately, in cases where a defendant has died before criminal proceedings are finalised, any complainant can also seek, and has the right to seek, compensation through civil proceedings.
Mr Deputy Speaker, this motion will not be supported. We have the support systems in place to assist victims of such crimes. An inquiry, as proposed by the member for Blain, importantly, would not change that level of support which is available there now, and has been for victims already identified, and is there, available immediately, should there be any other alleged victims not identified to this stage. It is up to that individual to identify. These matters are all treated confidentially and discreetly, and that support would be forthcoming immediately.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the motion for a board of inquiry into child sexual abuse allegations against Bob Collins, which my colleague, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, has put before the Assembly today.
The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has put forward this motion in good faith, as he has a genuine and sincere desire to help those who feel they are being abandoned. As an elected member of this parliament, and as a mother and a nanna who also shares his concerns, I would expect nothing else.
I have the greatest sympathy for Bob Collins’ wife and his family in this whole tragic saga. However, he is not here now to answer any of the allegations made against him. I also have the greatest sympathy for the alleged victims who have to live with the knowledge that their alleged perpetrator will never face judgment in court.
This motion is not about playing politics, and it certainly is not by any member who would be speaking in this debate. This is about the care of alleged victims, and to give them the opportunity to tell their story and to, hopefully, get some closure to get on with their lives. If there are other victims of child sexual abuse in our community in addition to the five already known to us, they need to be identified and to establish validity of their claims, to assist them to ensure the cycle of abuse is broken, and to ensure they receive the support they need to get on with their lives. We also need to ensure that the three identified people whose names have been made public, and include Tom E Lewis, whom I know, receive all the support possible to assist them in their healing process.
Bob Collins was a member of this parliament. As parliamentarians, we are expected to set the highest standards for our citizens and to have a duty of care to all. We have a huge responsibility to all Territorians, and that includes protecting and assisting victims of sexual abuse regardless of the identity of the perpetrator.
The Little Children are Sacred report was released earlier this year, and it highlighted the terrible incidence of child sexual abuse that has occurred, and is occurring, across our communities. We were all mortified by that report, and some action was and is being taken by both the Commonwealth and the Territory governments to address this. In addition, the Northern Territory government, at the August sittings, introduced the Care and Protection of Children Bill 2007. It is 169 pages of legislation which highlights the importance of protection to children.
The motion that has been put forward today to set up an inquiry into the alleged victims abused by Bob Collins needs the same attention and support from all parliamentarians who sit in this Assembly. I ask all members not to abandon our principles of protection for all children abused, past and present.
I have not spoken to Tom E Lewis. Because of the case being before the court as it was, I had not taken the opportunity to speak to him because I did not want to interfere in the court process. However, since Bob Collins has died, I have attempted to contact him. He has been away but I have spoken to Tom E’s wife. I can assure you that the family feels betrayed by the present situation.
I believe, as my colleagues do, that this board of inquiry as proposed by the Deputy Opposition Leader is an appropriate way to assist and support the alleged victims of child sexual abuse by Bob Collins. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the motion of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Local Government Reform
Local Government Reform
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, at the outset I offer my sincere condolences to the member for Arafura on hearing of the death of her father. This is a very tragic time for her. I regard her as a friend. Even though we have our occasional sparring times in parliament, that is irrelevant. I am sure the prayers of this parliament are with her at this moment.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I move –
That this Assembly:
(a) states that is has no confidence in the NT government because of the amateurish manner that is has tried to carry out local government reform; and
This motion before us today is in two parts and has come about after a detailed examination of the local government reform process since it began. It also came about because of the overwhelming support from over 250 rural residents who unanimously supported this motion at a Girraween Primary School meeting last week.
The reality is that this local government reform process has been forced on to the people of Litchfield, other councils, and the unincorporated areas. I also say at the outset that I support reform. I have supported - and I have said it publicly - the rating of pastoral properties and mining leases - but using a flat rate - and also the incorporation of unincorporated areas.
This NT government reform is not reform that brings the community with it. This is reform that the government has determined must happen, come hell or high water, and too bad if anyone disagrees. This reform pretends to involve the community through transition committees, but they are just window dressing and not representative of the wider community. If they were, people would not have been turning up at meetings asking so many questions. This reform was supposed to bring so-called savings and benefits or, if we believe the government advertisements, low rates and better services. That is a laugh.
I will now go through from the beginning and highlight how, from day one, the reform process was predetermined by government and they had no intention of moving from that course no matter what they had to do to get there – even, in some cases, using dishonest means.
Look at the local government time line. It was set; there was no consultation. The number of councils: they were set by the government with no consultation. We have documents here, for instance, by Brian Dollery, Joel Byrnes and Lin Crase for the Centre for Local Government for the University of New England. A working paper was brought out this year discussing the merits of large councils, and this document basically says that big is not necessarily better. This is the sort of discussion we needed at the beginning, but we were not allowed to have that debate.
Litchfield Shire was dissolved even after it was told earlier that it was not going to happen. That was forced on by the government - no consultation. The boundaries were set by the government - no consultation. There was some minor tinkering of boundaries permitted with the promise of consultation and the government said that there would be community consultation. The only meeting I knew of in relation to boundaries was one called by the Katherine Town Council, not the government, in relation to the boundaries of Katherine. The funny thing is that, even though these boundaries were supposed to be only tinkered with, the latest boundaries declared for the new so-called Top End Shire shows three pastoral properties which I think include quite a number of mining leases now in the Victoria/Daly Shire.
The government set up transition committees, and I am referring here to the Litchfield one. Litchfield, with a population of 17 000, has two representatives. The other 3000 people in this super shire have 10 representatives. To start with, that is not representative of the community. It is just undemocratic. The other problem with transition committees is the government set them up in theory that they would go out and meet the community. In the 10 months since this process has been going, I do not know of one meeting set up by any member of a transition committee. The meetings we have had were either set up by me or other local members, and we had one meeting organised by the government. One meeting in nine months. Yes, the member for Daly organised three meetings - more than that, sorry - I attended a number of his meetings.
There is talk about the transition committees being the public side of this reform process. The very first transition committee I went to, I was told I was not allowed to attend. The next transition committee I could attend; I had to be sponsored and I was permitted to speak for four minutes. I actually had to put my name on a list to say that I would like to be a speaker. Not exactly the sort of thing that encourages people to voice their opinion. The other thing is they are on a Wednesday during working hours – again, not the sort of thing that encourages the public to come along.
A classic example of what has happened is the transition committee with its 10:2 weighting decided that it would get rid of the name ‘Litchfield’ and use the name ‘Top End’. It goes to the advisory board; the government decides it will be the Top End. Seventeen thousand people on an unrepresentative transition committee are not represented by that decision. Litchfield, although it may be small in the whole process we are talking about today, was a name that related to an early pioneer of the area. That is where we get the name Freds Pass: Fred Litchfield. That is where we get the name Litchfield National Park. So, all of a sudden, we get a name which is no different than a couple of businesses at the 11 Mile.
As I said before, the government called one public meeting in nine months. It was held at Taminmin High School and, if you had been there, you would have seen that whoever organised the meeting did not realise that the venue was far too small. There was standing room only. The government appointed an advisor, Ms Sheila O’Sullivan, if I am correct, whose job was to explain what local government was to an audience that had had local government for 22 years. What annoyed most people was that there were no answers to the questions.
We had a meeting earlier than that at Girraween Primary School; I organised a dual meeting with Terry Mills. From that meeting came a motion which was reflected in the fourth lot of petitions I presented to this parliament today asking the government to slow down because we want to have a serious look at what is happening. We do not want to be forced into the situation of saying yes to something we do not really agree with. There were petitions and there were motions. At the Taminmin High School meeting, there was a motion saying slow the process down. It is not just me; this includes important people in the community like Mr Laurence Ah Toy. He spoke very clearly on this matter. There were many other people who have been in the Litchfield Shire for a long time. I do not think the government understands the depth of feeling here.
There were other meetings. The member for Daly would know what they were and, still, there were problems getting answers. If you read the business plan, things like core functions are already selected. Was there any public consultation on that? We have street lighting, weeds, fires, we have companion animals. The Douglas Daly is going to have companion animal legislation. Where was the public consultation - not just the transition committees, but the public consultation?
When we came to the transition legislation, even though I said many times to the government ‘Please slow this process down’, they rushed the legislation through. They said it was meant to go through in June. They gave it to the advisory board. The advisory board said ‘hang on a bit’, so we hung on. However, when you brought it to this parliament, people like me who surely must have some rights when it comes to legislation, were given the legislation one week and it was passed the next week. It was okay for the advisory board to have a look at it, terrific, and whoever else needs to look at it, but it was rushed through. Maybe there is nothing wrong with that legislation. I did have concerns. How do I have enough time to consult with councils, and with various people who are a bit more knowledgeable, while I am working in parliament? I do not know.
Then you have Labor’s own leader, Mr Rudd, and one of the local House of Representatives people, Mr Snowdon, saying slow down. They do not support forced amalgamations. Of course, you must realise that the Litchfield Shire Council is being forced into amalgamation. Regardless of what federal Labor is saying, you are still ploughing on. What is their reaction to that? We had some advertising that came from the Northern Land Council, the Chamber of Commerce, the NT Minerals Council, Small Business Association of the NT, the Trucking Association of the NT, the Cattlemen’s Association, Territory Construction Association, and the NT Horticultural Association all basically asking: why are you rushing local government reform?
Whether you agree with everything that was written in there is one issue, but the government decided that they would do something about that and so they brought out their own Strong councils, low rates, better services. That was their reaction. They were not going to sit around and take that from anyone. They thought they would bring this out. Lord knows what this has cost to put on the radio, and the television in the middle of the footy. I was a Port Adelaide supporter and we were already being done by 100 points and one of these turned up in front of me. That really cheered me up! Anyway, that is what was being put out time and time again. Many people still ask: ‘Tell me how this works: low rates, better services?’ Give us a break. People in the rural area are not silly.
That is what the government did and this is where it gets hard. The minister then sent out some letters. One of these was on 13 September. This is what really got my blood boiling, and this is why I say this government has been deceptive. It is using some issues related to the council that are not issues that I believe are of its concern. I will come back to it later, but Litchfield is a democratically-elected body. They are saying things like this: ‘Compare that to the fact that since 2003 Litchfield Shire Council has increased your rates by 53%’. That is telling the ratepayers of Litchfield that their rates have gone up by 53%. And why are they telling them that? Because they are trying to tell them the rates have gone up very high. The deception in that is that, if you look at the rates over 22 years, the rates have gone up by an average of 6% - you can do anything with statistics - and that 6% equals roughly $26 a year in rates. When people get the full story, they have a different concept. This letter makes no attempt to show that. It selectively took two major rate increases and made it look like the Litchfield Council was a bunch of so-and-sos.
What made it worse was that it did not attempt to explain why those rates went up. Rates went up for two reasons. First, as you know, councils have meetings with the Federal Assistance Grants Committee, and they get a reasonable idea from having those meetings whether they are going to get more money or less money. One year, they were told they were going to get a reduction in funding, so they increased their rates, because their budget comes out before the Commonwealth money arrives. They took what they thought was the advice and they raised the money. That is one reason the rates went up. I think they went up by 14%.
The other reason was because of the Litchfield landfill site being closed down. We can get into arguments as to why it closed down, and I am quite happy to have a barny about that. The reason they went up is because rubbish has to be taken to Shoal Bay. That is the reason for the increase. Is there anything in here that says that? No! What does it say? ‘And there have been none of the extra services you would expect from such a hike’. Of course, there are no extra services, because this rate increase had a reason.
What you are trying to twist that to say: ‘Oh, you have bumped the rates up; therefore, you should get extra services’. There are two things that are wrong: (1) that there was a reason for those rates going up and, (2) because rates go up does not necessarily mean you expect extra services. The cost of providing the existing services might have gone through the roof because of petrol prices, bitumen - you name it - insurance, the cost of the contract, because Litchfield is a contract council. So, you cannot say that just because the rates went up you should have extra services; that column is deceptive. That thing was trying to hoodwink people, and that is what got me so annoyed.
Minister, at a meeting on 26 August, you also said - and I have the notes here in my little book - that, in relation to the rates – and the member for Daly was there – that it will come back to the transition committee about what the rates would be. This meeting was held on 26 August at Dundee. Then, minister, you declared the rates capped for three years, the actual rate and the type of rating system, and there was no consultation with the transition committee, no consultation with the people, and no consultation, for instance, with businesses. I have been around to some businesses lately, delivering my newsletter. I have not found one business that has realised that their rating system had changed; that they now will be paying UCV if the value of their land is high. You have to remember, we have not had any other rating system but flat rate. You would have thought, if big brother government is going to come in and declare the rates, that it would have discussed that with business. I can tell you now, you would be pushing to find anyone in Litchfield Shire who wants the flat rate changed, but you have enforced the flat rate on the mining, pastoral and business properties. You have introduced something that we do not have, we did not want.
Another thing with the capping of the rates is that you have not stated what the Aboriginal service fees will be, or what the fees will be for Aboriginal land. Although the business plan mentions agricultural/pastoral, the fact sheet which was sent out only mentions pastoral properties. Therefore, you have two areas which are missing from your rate capping; that is, what will Aboriginal people pay as a service fee or a rate; and what will be the rate for agriculture land? I refer specifically, of course, to Douglas Daly land. It has been said to me time and time again by people there that they do not even have a valuation of the land yet, but we have capped the rates.
What I find hard to believe, and perhaps people do not understand, is that people like the flat rate because they believe it is a fee for service. When you look at what has been put forward in the business plan, you see that what is being pushed is something which goes right against what people in the rural area accept. This is what the preliminary business plan said on page 40:
- In this regard rates are ad valorem tax; a tax based on the assessed value of real estate or personal property. Property values are considered to give an indication of the wealth of a taxpayer. While individual examples can be provided where this is not the case, generally evidence clearly shows that for people or businesses that are in higher income brackets tend to own more expensive property. Rates based on property values, therefore, are based on the perceived ability of the ratepayer to pay. Those with higher land values will contribute more than ratepayers who own land of a lesser value.
The application of a minimum rate can ensure that everyone contributes reasonably towards the cost of the council’s functions. Those with very low property values would still contribute reasonably and, therefore, reduce to some degree the impact of those with very high property values.
What that is saying is totally against the philosophy of Litchfield Shire. Litchfield Shire has never said: ‘You own a large block of land, therefore, you must be rich; you own a business, therefore, you can afford to pay’. We have said: ‘You will pay a service fee across the board’. It is like catching the bus. We do not say: ‘Excuse me, sir, are you getting on at Fannie Bay? It is $10. Oh, you are getting on at Karama, it is $5. Are you getting on in a suburb in Palmerston? That will be $4’. We do not work that way. That is the philosophy Litchfield Council has held for 22 years, and the government has enforced, by capping the rates, not only the value of the rates but the type of rating. It has enforced a UCV system that no one has asked for.
As well as that, the government released its business plan for public discussion. What is so amazing with this business plan is that it says on the front cover: ‘Draft Version 1 for Community Consultation’. One of the keys items in this draft preliminary business plan is the rating options. This is for community consultation and it has three draft options: one is flat rate; one is UCV; and the other is a combination. Before this has gone out for community consultation, the government has taken Option 3 out of here and declared: ‘You will have it for three years’. One of the core platforms of this business plan has been decided with no community consultation. Why would you bother looking at the business plan? It is like going to get a loan before you know the cost of the house. It is silly.
There are many assumptions in here. There are the assumptions about the amount of money you are going to get for road upgrades. You have sections which say: ‘Total additional funding being sought by the NT government, $5.2m’. Being sought! You have: ‘Current levels of NT-wide DPI road maintenance costs to be transferred between $2.4m and $7.4m’. We do not know how much will come. You have: ‘One-off road funding upgrade being sought, $10m’. I went to a meeting last Tuesday with Jim Lloyd, the federal minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads. He said: ‘I have not offered them any extra money. I have this letter in front of me. I need more information and this is not a fait accompli or something I can say is going to happen’. Yet, that money is in the business plan. That is the money which is used to work out the cost of running the roads, and it is part of how you worked out the rates.
On top of that, there are several areas in here which you cannot use in the budget. One is the Black Spot Program. This program is decided by applying to the government to get money. This year you might get it, next year you will not. You cannot put a value in there that is the same each year because you do not know. Another one, Litchfield has this wonderful thing called ‘ratepayer contribution’ where people pay for their roads. The latest information I have from Litchfield is that most of those roads that were on the ratepayer contribution scheme have now been completed. There would still be some money in the bank account but there were not many roads to be done. You cannot put the ratepayer contribution at roughly $600 000 to $656 000 a year. You do not know that. You do not know the developer contributions because it depends on how many subdivisions will occur. That is a very dubious figure to put there when the facts are not before you. There are a number of issues in that business plan on which you based your rating, and I believe cannot be assumed.
The government is claiming the federal government supported these amalgamations. They may have given some money for IT changes; I know they received some money for that. When this was asked of Jim Lloyd, he said: ‘The federal government has not funded amalgamations. It supports voluntary amalgamations’. That is from the federal minister at that meeting last Tuesday. The question was put to him and he said that. Maybe the feds supported the principle of amalgamations but, according to Jim Lloyd, they have not funded them and they only support voluntary amalgamations. It is no different to federal Labor.
I will give you a few other areas that I think are of concern. The community has had no say over the number of councillors. Litchfield Council has four councillors for 17 000 people. There is only one option in this paper, in this business plan; that is, there will be 12 councils. All it does is a variation on 12 councils. You have increased your councils by three times for only 3000 people. Was that discussed amongst the community? I did not get a feeling the other night when we had the meeting that was a good idea at all. Four councillors can handle 17 000 people okay. Why don’t we have eight councillors? I do not know. People were not involved. It might say there are some options in the business plan, but the number of councillors is set. There is no debate on whether we should have one councillor per ward, or two councillors per ward. In this document it is two councillors per ward.
I do not want to get into an argument whether the type of rating system is a good or bad system. I have spoken in this parliament before about if you are going to have multiple candidates in wards you should perhaps look at the system in Tasmania. I am not going to get into whether that is good or bad. The issue I am raising here is that there is no debate about that. It actually said the preferential system will be, and that is it.
The government said to Cox Peninsula and Belyuen: ‘Have a look at whether you belong to Darwin’. I think they gave them $20 000 and there was certainly a strong impression that that was likely to happen. It appears that they voted for it. The minister may have other information on that, and I am happy to listen to that. But the number of phone calls and e-mails from Cox Peninsula people tells me they are not very happy. The problem is that now that they have gone back into the Top End Shire, the preliminary business plan does not take that into account. It says it would not make a huge effect but, again, you have a business plan that presumes Cox Peninsula/Belyuen will be one council and now they have come back into this council. It does make some changes when you are looking at the wards and the ward structure.
Also, as has been mentioned today, we talked about the CEOs and how the South Australian company, Locher, has the job to go out and advertise for them. I looked up the web page last week, and it said they will only be based in these various areas. That has changed. I asked the minister today and I still do not have that clear. I do not believe going to the transition committee or whatever is the process. When you elect your CEO, and you only have nine councils, you would expect your CEO to at least work in that community. What sort of message is that going to send out to the people? Litchfield people are not going to appreciate you having a CEO in Darwin. No way. You have a perfectly good council office at Freds Pass, on Bees Creek Road - not Bees Creek. It is in the Freds Pass District Centre. That is where they would expect their CEO. That is where they expect their Director of Corporate Services. Certainly, they will travel around the area, but that is where they will expect to see them.
I organised a meeting the other day. It was my organisation. I know the minister said on Stateline that it was organised by Jodeen Carney; it was organised by me. I paid the advertising. The only adverts …
Mr Bonson: Murphy said she could not get 250 people unless she gave away free grog.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Millner! Member for Nelson, please continue.
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! Would the member for Millner like to retract that? Are you saying I gave out free grog?
A member: No, no.
Mr WOOD: Sorry.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Millner, I did not hear that.
Mr WOOD: I did not catch what was said.
Mr BONSON: Mr Deputy Speaker, no, I was referring to Peter Murphy’s article in the Sunday Territorian, which said that Jodeen Carney could not attract more than 200 people to any function without giving out free grog.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Millner. There is no point of order, please continue.
Mr WOOD: I am sorry, member for Millner. I only caught the end of it. The CLP asked whether they could attend. I said yes and the opposition member came to that meeting, but it was my organisation. They are the facts.
Minister, on the Stateline program, you said that Litchfield is not viable into the future and have the modelling to prove it. I asked in the beginning why you were dissolving Litchfield. It has always been said that it is not viable into the future.
Now you say there is a model. If it is around, why was it not produced right at the beginning? I have heard about the $500 000 being taken off federal assistance grants. In fact, I found out today Litchfield is not going to lose money. They are actually getting a slight increase in money. Next year, there will be some changes with the federal assistance grants, but so what? It has money in the bank. It is an expanding council. If it is going to lose money from the federal assistance grants, then maybe it has to put up its rates. If you told the public that is the reason their rates are going up, you have a fair chance they will accept it. They might not like it, but that is not a reason for dissolution of a council. That is a punishment for the federal assistance grants being reduced. Leave that up to the council to sort out, not for the government to use it as an excuse to get rid of the council.
From beginning to end, we have had little or no community consultation - real community consultation, not gammon community consultation. There was one meeting in Litchfield for 17 000 people. That is one government meeting, which was an absolute failure. We had a lady going around telling us how Woolworths do not pay enough rates. No idea why they do not pay those rates and no idea that Woolworths itself does not pay the rates; Bob Biddlecombe does.
The people of Litchfield may at times be unhappy with their council, but that is why you have council elections. That is why you have local government democracy. I do not always support my council. There are a couple of issues that really give me the creeps, but that is for me to work out with my council. If you do not like your council, you vote for someone you support. That is not the role of the NT government.
Mr CONLAN: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move an extension of time for the member for Nelson pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Thank you. If you do not like your council, you can stand yourself or vote for someone you support. That is not the role of the NT government sticking its beak in. If a council was corrupt, that may be a good reason. The Litchfield Council has been targeted by this government. Here is a council that tried to keep costs down. It has only 10 staff and four vehicles. It does not go off on Sister Cities trips or jaunts, pays it president and councillors peanuts, runs most of the reserves with volunteers, tries innovative ways of sealing roads to the local rate, has an infrastructure development levy, has been a pioneer in protecting wetlands and waterways from development, encourages the motto ‘Community Effort is Essential’, has kept away from over-regulation, and always stuck to its core functions of roads, reserves and rubbish.
It is a financially healthy council with reserves. It needs to cover depreciation of its assets. It is not in debt, even though the Collins report tends to say that is not a bad idea. It has never been in debt and it is not dysfunctional. The question you have to ask is: why is this government really dissolving this council? If there is a reason, minister, please tell me why Katherine Town Council, which just increased its boundaries about to the same as the existing Litchfield Shire Council, was not dissolved and why were Darwin and Palmerston not amalgamated?
I believe it is discriminatory, unfair and, to some extent, vindictive. It is well known - and I knew this even in my time on the council - that some in government have a strong dislike for Litchfield Shire, and that can be seen by the garbage that was spread around during the debate on the closure of the Humpty Doo tip which, looking back, seemed to be part of a deliberately orchestrated campaign to get at the council.
There are also the untruths about the reserves. I have heard it from government people saying: ‘Oh, Litchfield Council has all these reserves’. Those reserves are there because they managed their money well and they knew that, at some time, those reserves might be needed. There was a requirement under the Australian Accounting Standards to have reserves, a percentage of your assets. Even the money that the council has comes nowhere near the true percentage of the assets required. They did have money, and you should compare that, say, with Palmerston Council which, two years ago, raised its rates considerably because it did not have enough assets to seal certain roads that required sealing. Litchfield has not gone down that path.
For all the good things this council has done, the Northern Territory government seems to have gone after it with a vengeance and tried to use the issues of dogs, rubbish, libraries and the swimming pool to divide the community and use those issues as a smokescreen for the dictatorial actions it is taking. Rural residents might not always like their council, and have some gripes with it from time to time, but they would rather the devil they know than the devil the government is trying to foist on them.
The government has pursued this reform process relentlessly without bringing the people along. The process has been amateurish and foolish, but the people have not thrown that entire concept away. They have said to the government, start again and involve them from the very beginning, which you never did. Take your time and be flexible. That is the challenge for this government. You told the people in Litchfield and surrounding areas they would be one council - that is it, you do not have any other options. I am not against that area being under local government, but why did the community not have a chance to have a say? One, two, or three councils might have been the answer. There was no discussion at the beginning, and that is what set this off. The reason I have not done anything until now is because I have never had enough information to say whether I support it. I always said in the beginning: ‘I support it, but I want to see the fine print’. The fine print has turned up and I do not accept it ...
Mr Henderson interjecting.
Mr WOOD: You, member for Wanguri, support Darwin and Palmerston being amalgamated and I might believe you.
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr WOOD: The challenge for this government, if it does not support at least the second half of this resolution - and I am happy to have the motion voted on in two parts if people want that – is that the anger of rural residents will continue into the federal election and on to the next Territory election. That does not need to happen if the government would just simply start again. The government needs to weigh up carefully what it is going to do. You can enforce your local government reform on the people and take the consequences of many bitter and resentful rural folk at the next election. I will say, minister, read the minutes from the May transition committee. I did not see too many happy statements made about all this.
You can start again and involve the community, find an acceptable solution which will do what you want; it will bring reform to Northern Territory local government and it will keep most people happy. You will never satisfy everybody; there are some people out there who do not want to pay any rates as all. I do not support that, but the way we are going is not going to help the bigger community.
Your concept of councils is a specified number of ABS numbers for people, multiplied by economic rationalism, divided by bureaucracy gone mad. What you have forgotten is the community. You will have councils as big as Victoria, and no one has been able to question you about that. If anyone looked at that map, you would have to ask, what are we doing? You just make the decisions and ignore any real debate or community involvement.
Litchfield is a community. It is an existing community. It is made up of football clubs, old timers, gardeners, families, school kids, workers, the lot. I say, pop down to Freds Pass and have a look at how many kids use Freds Pass for sport. See the people at the Freds Pass Show, the cattle and the polocrosse and the show jumpers and the Scouts. Litchfield has a community, and that is the part of this debate that has been avoided. It is all about the economics. It is all about dollar plus dollar plus dollar. In fact, I do not see anything in the preliminary business plan that talks about the importance of community, and that is what is being missed.
Minister, the choice is yours. Start again, listen and work with the community. It is up to the government. If not, I guarantee I will fight this all the way, and I believe many other people will fight this issue all the way.
Minister, when I went to that meeting, I put some issues to the people. The meeting was not a wild meeting. There were no insulting remarks, except for some remarks from some bloke and that was not relevant to the meeting. People listened, they asked some questions, and we put some motions to them. They did not abuse the government. Most people at all the meetings have said they do accept that some reforms of local government should happen in the Northern Territory. What they are saying is you have not brought us along; you have enforced these things. You have enforced one council; you have changed the name of the council. You have enforced the type of rates; you have enforced how much the rates will be. You have not asked the people what they thought of that. Until you ask those people, and involve the real people - not the transition committee that is weighted 10:12 against the people of Litchfield – in the decision-making process, you will be seen as an enforcer - an enforcer of some government policy that has not involved the community. That is, sadly, why this process is running off the rails.
You may continue with this process; I cannot stop that. All I can say is that I know there are many people in the rural area who are proud of their Litchfield Shire even though they might not like it. They like the rural lifestyle. They like the flat rates. They like the low regulations. There are some issues and they are issues for the council to discuss as a democratically elected local government body. Whether it is dogs, swimming pools, or rubbish, that is not for the government to be telling Litchfield people about. Let them work it out. Let them vote for new councillors. Let them vote for new policies. Let them deal with it in a democratically elected council.
Until that happens, minister, I believe that this will continue to run off the rails, and more and more people will get angry. The number of people who are already ringing me up about the rally next week - which is going to be held on Wednesday. If people who are reading this debate would like to join in that rally – it is not going to be wild or on the steps of parliament; it is simply going to drive through town. We will meet at Mindil Beach at 11.30 am and will move off at 12.15 pm. There will be some balloons and streamers and a bit of noise, but it is a symbolic rally to say to the government: ‘We are not happy. We want you to change. We want you to stop. We want you to start again’.
Minister, if you do that, it might muck up your timetable – a timetable of thou shalt not stop - but, in the end, you would end up with a far better result and you would get the process back on the rails and achieve the goals you are trying to achieve.
Mr McADAM (Local Government): Mr Deputy Speaker, I have listened with interest to some of the issues raised by the member for Nelson. It is very important to understand that, whilst I appreciate and respect his points of view on the issues that surround the Litchfield Shire, this government has always made it very clear that we are dealing with issues that impact across the whole of the Northern Territory.
On not one occasion did I hear the member for Nelson make any reference to those councils, or any proposals or any issues, outside of his particular area of interest. Sadly, that is one of the issues that we have faced in the past in the context of where we go with local government. In many cases, we become very insular, very isolated, and we believe that what we do at a regional level within our respective shires is the best. I am no different in respect to Tennant Creek. We cannot afford to stand still. We cannot afford to sit back, rest on our laurels, and expect the outcomes into the future, in the interests of all Territorians, including those in the Litchfield Shire.
The member for Nelson referred to the Girraween meeting which, I suppose in a way, brought a change of mind on his part in respect to where he might go in regard to these reforms. I know that in the past, the member for Nelson has supported local government reform. In what form, that is still to be determined. I know for a fact that he has supported the idea of the incorporation of the whole of the Northern Territory in regard to local government models, or a new form of local government. He did that when he was Vice President of LGANT. Member for Nelson, you and I might disagree in how we get there, but we have an abiding position of the need to put in place these sort of changes which are going to bring maximum benefits not only for people in Litchfield but right across the Northern Territory.
You made reference to the 250-odd people who were at that meeting. I want to make reference to the thousands of other people across the Northern Territory who support these reforms, who are engaged in providing advice, not only to me as the minister through the advisory board, but through transition committees. There are in excess of 300 people across the Northern Territory who are involved in this particular process. That sort of input should never be ignored. Equally so, there are opportunities in the context of those people who live in the Litchfield Shire, in regards to the Top End Shire, to be part of that process, and they have been part of it. A transition committee is in place, and they have had people on the advisory board. Therefore, from day one, the people you refer to in Litchfield, member for Nelson, have had ample opportunity to be able to engage in this process.
I have to say from day one there has been an intent on the part of those people out there - not all, because I happen to speak to people from that area as well – who, essentially, do not want any change whatsoever. They believe the world is going to wait for them to catch up, but that is not the case. The Top End Shire, including Litchfield, potentially, will be one of the most dynamic, innovative, economically viable shires into the future. You know that as well as I do.
The creep to the south from Darwin is happening as we speak. There have been many requests from people in the Litchfield area and the Cox Peninsula area regarding development opportunities. I spoke to Mary Walshe, the President, about two months ago and she admitted that, effectively, as a shire collectively for that area, they did not have an understanding of where they might end up. This opportunity for a new form of local government incorporating the Top End Shire would allow that to occur.
I will give you this assurance, as I did to Mary Walshe. I advised her that we would fund a planning development project in the context of where they might end up in the future. We would also do that in regards to the other shires across the Northern Territory. The reason why I said it in regards to the Top End Shire was because of a request from her for it to occur. She is aware of the pressures which are in place right across that particular area, and it is for that reason that these sorts of changes should occur.
I want to respond to some of your other concerns, member for Nelson, particularly around the Litchfield Shire. The suggestion that Litchfield may not be part of the new Top End Shire in terms of a name is false. No decision has been made. If the transition committee, or you, or any other members, wants to put to me any suggestions or ideas of what the Top End Shire might be called, and if you want to incorporate Litchfield into that - certainly. Why not? Let us consider it. I do not see it as my role as a minister to determine what the name might be. Quite properly, that would be responsibility of the shire, and I have made that very clear across the Northern Territory. The names you have are indicative only; they are names which have been developed over time as a result of discussions within the shires and within the transition committees. If Litchfield wants to become part of the new shire, once it is named, up there in lights, put it up. I suspect that the shire might want to consider that at some time in the future.
You also talked about matters regarding the federal Leader of the Opposition, Kevin Rudd, and Warren Snowdon, the member for Lingiari, who has been urging me to slow down. Obviously I take into consideration their points of view, as indeed, I do yours. Equally so, Mal Brough, the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. Contrary to what you say, Jim Lloyd has put in writing to me that he supports these reforms and believes they are the mechanism which are going to provide certainty, opportunity, and a new way of doing things in the bush, allowing investment in the bush, something which has been lacking for a very long time.
You suggest that there are other positions out there in terms of Rudd and Snowdon. As I said, I respect that but, at the same time, I have to take into consideration the interests of all people in the Northern Territory despite what political pressure might be brought to bear upon me or the government. It is for that reason that we remain committed to the time frames.
I am not going to delude you in any way in what we might do into the future. What I can say to you very clearly is that we are absolutely committed to this reform. We are committed to this reform in the context of the whole Northern Territory because we know, you know, the member for Greatorex knows, that we cannot allow things to occur as they have in the past. There has been ample evidence from ministers and members of this House on either side, over a very long period of time, who have bemoaned the fact that local government simply does not work in the regions and the remote areas of the Northern Territory. It is for that reason we are doing it.
As I said to you before, you, as Vice President of LGANT, made very clear your position. You never opposed it in the past. All I am saying to you is think about the whole of the Northern Territory. If there are issues in the Litchfield Shire that we believe that we can accommodate, I am happy to look at them, as I have always said to you during this process. I am always happy to look at it. The fact is that, unfortunately, there has been a group of people who do not want to engage in the process because they do not want change. That is fine. That is there prerogative. I do not think they can hold the rest of the Northern Territory to ransom, and that is what they are attempting to do. Might I say, member for Nelson, I hope that you are not going down that path.
There are other matters that I want to raise which I think are very important. Since we have announced this local government reform and, as an indication of a confidence that governments have - not only the Northern Territory government but, indeed, the Commonwealth government has - in this reform, it is very important to understand the dollars that have been coming forward not only in establishing this model, this new form of local government, but also in investing for the future of people who are going to be part of this reform.
As a result of a whole host of misinformation that has been circulated, not only in the media but in other forms - and you are not excluded from this, member for Nelson - I place on the record that if you do have a very strong management model incorporating strong accounting, administrative practices and principles, then you will get investment. I ask you, member for Nelson, to look to the past and ask yourself the question: has there been any confidence on the part of whatever government, federal or locally in the NT, to invest? The answer is no. Under this reform, I believe there will be a greater confidence on the part of the Commonwealth government and the Northern Territory government to invest in a well-managed model.
By way of information, the Commonwealth government provided $4.9m for the appointment of development coordinators. The Northern Territory government has already committed $1.6m. That is a total of $6.5m invested in a process they believe will have outcomes. The $6.4m came from Senator Coonan, the Australian government, to fund business information systems under the Clever Networks Program. We submitted that on the basis that we believe that this new local government reform was the way to go forward and, quite rightly, the Commonwealth government agreed and invested $6.4m. That shows confidence in where we are heading with this reform. As a result of the establishment, the Northern Territory government contributed $9.9m over two years to allow this process to begin.
Further to that, we have had a $60m investment on the part of both the Commonwealth and Northern Territory governments for jobs for local people. God knows only too well how important it is to get jobs out there in the communities. Local government has provided the confidence for the Commonwealth and Northern Territory governments to fund $30m each over three years. That is $60m to provide real jobs for people, to allow people to have real employment opportunities but, more importantly, to get a proper wage. Ask yourself the question: would that sort of investment have been forthcoming had we not made these sorts of changes?
There are other dollars we have announced as a result of Closing the Gap. There are indigenous people who live in the Litchfield Shire, in the Top End Shire, who are going to be beneficiaries of this, as will all people who live in the new shires, whether they are indigenous or non-indigenous. They are all going to benefit from the dollar input.
There is $3m over three years to establish local community boards, to provide them with support. There is $5m to provide local community governments. Surely, we all recognise that has been one of the big issues in this local government reform? There is $4.5m to provide sport and recreation facilities and programs in each of the shires. The point I am trying to make is that whilst I understand and appreciate your concerns that might relate to the Litchfield Shire and its involvement in the Top End Shire, it is important to understand that these reforms will provide the real benefits right across the Northern Territory, quite apart from your concerns as they relate to the Top End Shire.
Another issue which is very important is that sometimes we equate the shire model with conventional, historic, traditional local government practices and principles, the core services of rates, roads, and rubbish, all those sort of things. We in the Northern Territory have an opportunity to develop something that is very special, very different, to incorporate all those principles that we have traditionally known that surrounds local government, but to have a look at how we can provide other services and how we can attract other opportunities into our regions. By having a strong CEO, strong corporate service managers, strong back-up support, real investment on the part of government; they are the opportunities that will become evident over time.
You raised some other issues as well, member for Nelson, in respect of Locher being retained by local government to recruit the CEOs and the corporate service managers. I readily acknowledge that the information that went up on the Locher site in the first instance was inaccurate. It did not reflect this government’s position in where the CEOs and corporate service managers might be placed. Obviously, in the case of the Top End Shire Council - and I have told this to Mary Walshe - it would be silly to base those positions anywhere other than where the existing office is. We have not changed our mind one bit.
For your information, subject to ongoing discussions and negotiations, the CEOs and corporate service managers will be based where the existing shire is. That is the logical thing to occur, as will be the case for Tennant Creek in my electorate, the Barkly Shire. That is not going to Alice Springs. Those positions will be based in Tennant Creek, equally, in respect to Arnhem East either at Nhulunbuy or Yirrkala. Those negotiations are ongoing. There is no suggestion that they are going to be based in Darwin. The same applies to Arnhem West. There is no suggestion that it is going to be in Darwin or Katherine. My understanding is that there are options open in regards to Jabiru. They are even talking about having the community services component based at Maningrida. The same applies to the Gulf Shire; that will be based in Katherine. That is the advice I am getting from the group of people there. There is a great degree of capacity to ensure that the expertise of people that we recruit will be based in the regions or the shires that we refer to.
You might have been getting mixed up in the business information systems. They will be based in Katherine, Darwin and Alice Springs. Very clearly, contrary to what you believe or what you hear, I want to give you this assurance that there will be an absolute focus to ensure that these positions are based on the ground in the regions to support the new model, and to provide guidance.
There are other matters that I want to respond to regarding what you raised. You referred to the rates, and you were concerned about the rating model determined by the Northern Territory government regarding the new Top End Shire Council. It is fair to say that we have put in place a very fair response to what clearly was causing lot of concern. We had people running around the countryside saying all of a sudden that these rates are going to go up by $40 000, $50 000. I heard that. The bottom line is that we have maintained the flat rate for those people who are residential landholders. The flat rate applies. We have put in place different configurations for commercial and pastoral, and I believe those to be very fair and reasonable formulas which responds to positions put by the Top End Shire that they wanted low rates and minimal services. Of course, we have done that.
I do not think anyone can doubt that because, if you go elsewhere in Australia and in some of the other municipal council areas of the Northern Territory, and ask yourself if the rates in the Top End Shire are not reasonable compared to the others. I respectfully put to you, and all the ratepayers out there, that we have put in place a very fair and equitable response. We are looking after the battlers. We are ensuring that there is economic modelling into the future that will, at the very least, be able to provide the minimal-type services required by the Top End Shire.
We have sent a very strong message to the rest of the Northern Territory of how we might configure the rates. What has occurred in the Top End is indicative of what will happen right across the Northern Territory. As I say, this is an emerging model; we are not amalgamating existing local government models. This is a brand new model and this government acknowledges that we have to ensure that we place a very supportive, hands-on role over the next three to four years in getting these models up. There is a lot of fear out there. I believe that we have quite clearly alleviated some of the concerns, mischief, and humbug being spread by people who, essentially, did not want to be part of the process in the first place.
The other point I want to raise is to make very clear that this was not something that this government rushed into when we embarked on this process. It is not something we thought we would do because we wanted to be vindictive to the Litchfield Shire. That is exactly what you implied. I defy you to name any instance, nominate any occasion, where I have been less than fair in dealing with all people in the Top End shire, including those in Litchfield. You nominate a time where I have deliberately gone out of my way to be vindictive or, indeed, to compromise the good people you speak about. I can assure that that has not been the case. I made it very clear to you in a meeting that you and I had regarding where we might go around the ratings, where I said to you: ‘You are not going to get me coming out there and bagging individual people who are peddling misinformation and mistruths’. So, get it out of your mind that this is an attack by the Northern Territory government to penalise or to compromise those people in Litchfield.
I am not too interested in what has occurred in the past in Litchfield. What I do know is that the Top End model, the Top End proposal, is a sound one, it is a strong one, it is going to provide real opportunity for people who reside in that region into the future, as it will for those people who reside outside that proposed shire.
As I have said to you before, member for Greatorex, ask yourself the question: are existing community government councils - whether they are community government councils, or association councils which carry out local government functions, or Office of the Registrar of Aboriginal Corporations organisations - viable going forward? If you think they are, then please, mount an argument. Tell me what we are doing wrong, because I can assure you that they are not. This is not in any way a slight on those people who have worked so hard with little resources, with little expertise. They have been battered from pillar to post because they are small, because they are not listened to, because we, as governments, conveniently push them aside or play them as political footballs.
Ask yourself the question: should we allow that to continue into the future? Again, the answer is no. You just cannot afford to allow what has occurred in the past to go on into the future regarding communities outside the major municipal councils of the Northern Territory.
We have to understand that we live in the 21st century. I have said this before: the people of the Northern Territory have matured immensely over the last five, 10 years, and that is indicative of what you see right across the Northern Territory. People recognise that we belong to one jurisdiction, to one state, and that we genuinely now want to engage to ensure that the opportunities that are available are shared. It is fair to say that in the past - and I have said this before, and I will continue to say it - I do not think we have paid due respect or due recognition of people outside the major cities.
This is what it is all about. It is all about cattlemen, road houses, small businesses, tourism, indigenous people, it is all of them working together for the best possible outcomes. They are the people who live in the bush, and they should be afforded a new form of local government, a new model, to allow themselves an opportunity to have the same quality of life that you and I take for granted, member for Nelson.
I have heard you talk about your involvement at the Daly and the programs you ran there, and how things have changed, and that it is not like it was in the old days. The fact is that it will never be the same; things move on. That does not mean to say you do not deny the people at the Daly or Tennant Creek, Borroloola, the Tiwis, Nhulunbuy or anywhere else that opportunity. You do not deny them a very robust form of governance to allow them to do the things they want to do.
Member for Nelson, I appeal to you to bear that in mind because, whilst I appreciate and respect your concerns as they relate to Litchfield Shire, this is bigger than Litchfield Shire. Indeed, it is bigger than the Top End Shire. It is incumbent on us; we have a duty to put in place something that can work. Traditionally and historically, local government reform has always been tough. It has always been hard. You only have to look at what Kennett did a few years ago in Victoria or what Fraser tried to do in Queensland ...
Mr NATT: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move an extension of time for the member for Barkly pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr McADAM: At the very least, we have put in place what I believe to be a very robust form of allowing people to have opportunities, to be able to consult, to provide input. There is any number of examples - and I am not going to use them to justify myself today - where we have been flexible enough to change, to ensure that people’s views are put to the advisory and transition bodies. We have been prepared to listen to those arguments.
In all honesty, member for Nelson, I suspect that there are some people who do not want to do anything. They want to stay as they are. They want to stand still and they do not want to be part of a process. I respect that. If you have 250, 300 or 500 people in your area, and they are opposed to change, let me know about it. If we can make some changes that might entertain their position, we will do that. I will tell you this, though: I am not going to sacrifice the opportunities for countless thousands of other Territorians. I will not do that. I do not think this government will, either.
It is for that reason I am not going to stop the process and this government is not going to stop the process. Sure, we are prepared to listen and make changes where we can to ensure that the best possible outcomes apply to each of the respective shires, and that includes the Top End.
In conclusion, I respect what you say. I respect what other people say. They have to respect the fact that this government has made a decision and that this government has to provide the best possible outcomes for all Territorians. For that reason, I ask you to re-engage in the process, as I have said to so many others. We will listen to you. We may not always agree with you, but we will always give you an opportunity to tell us what you think we might be able to achieve within the time frames and the framework that we have put in place.
The same applies to the member for Greatorex, the opposition spokesperson on local government. The invitation is extended to you, but if you want to go out and play politics, do so at your own peril. You have to understand that unless you have the courage and the guts to confront the issues, then you are not going to make a mark in this place. This is a great opportunity for you, member for Greatorex, to make a real difference. Sure, play politics with me but, at the same time, make a difference. That is why you chose to become a local member; to make a difference, just like the former member for Greatorex, Richard Lim, before you, like every other member on this side of the House. Make a difference to those people who, quite frankly, I believe, have not been treated with the respect they deserve over a long period of time.
This is what it is all about, member for Nelson. It is not about putting the boots into Litchfield, not at all. It is providing an opportunity for all Territorians.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Mr Deputy Speaker, I offer my condolences to the member for Arafura for the terrible news that she has just received. Our thoughts from this side of the House are with her and her family today.
Mr Deputy Speaker, much has been said on this subject in recent weeks and months. I had a bit to say on it in the last parliamentary sittings. I do not know if there is much more that can be said when it comes to our position. However, I will add to this debate and in support of the motion from the member for Nelson.
The CLP supports local government reform, and we have always said that we do. We have never shied away from that. We just do not support this approach by the Northern Territory government. We believe in taking the people along with you, not a forced steamroll-style, which this appears to be, and a model that recognises councils which are performing and supports those councils which are not performing.
There has been no real meaningful consultation with Territorians. If there was, there would not be such public outcry and concern about this. Three hundred people just the other week is a good indication of how concerned people are. There is a whole range of questions that Territorians want answered, but the minister is unable to do so. The public meeting at Berry Springs a couple of months ago was a good example of that. Hundreds of Territorians have expressed their concern, yet it continues to fall on deaf ears, so much so that the Cattlemen’s Association has decided to bypass the Minister for Local Government and go straight to the Chief Minister. Warren Snowdon, the member for Lingiari, as mentioned before, and Kevin Rudd, have both suggested and urged the Territory Minister for Local Government to slow down on this. They do not support the forced style of amalgamation, yet this government continued to plough on.
You have to ask what it will actually take for them to slow down and listen. Perhaps it will take a rally. We saw the results of that in Alice Springs when 500 people protested against the Chief Minister during the parliamentary sittings, and that got some action. Perhaps the rally which is being organised for next week will produce some action. Many people from the meeting at Girraween last week will turn up for that, so we might see some action from that from the minister.
All petitions and all motions asking the government to slow down have failed. The government has chosen to embark on an advertising campaign accusing critics of the planned amalgamations of being poorly informed. It is quite ironic that a group of concerned stakeholders, who have called themselves A Community Speaks Out, have said that the lack of information is exactly what the campaign is about; the information vacuum.
They have already drawn up the boundaries, as we have seen in the map, without any consultation. I have said before and will say it again, and I know that the member for Nelson has said this, that they have gone through, drawn up these boundaries without any consultation with those whom it might affect. Some of those are, of course, the size of Victoria, 1500 km apart. The member for Nelson put it very well the other night that that is a long way to take a grader. One of those boundaries shires - I think it is No 12 - stretches from Western Australia right through to Queensland. That is a long way.
Some points were raised by concerned stakeholders such as the Minerals Council, the Northern Land Council and the Cattlemen’s Association. A couple of those were: that strong councils must have a sense of community, not stretched from Queensland to the Western Australian border; and the super shires are the size of Victoria and appear to have been based on statistical boundaries, not communities of interest. How on earth can a shire the size of Victoria adequately give representation to the hundreds of dispersed communities and pastoral properties? How is this efficient?
Another point raised is how does throwing several dysfunctional councils together create a functional council, and what happens to the many well-run community councils that are thrown into the poor ones? Another query is that the super shires creation has not been done on indigenous family or skin clan basis. The Northern Land Council is concerned that the government has split country; this reform has been done at the expense of community. Another couple of concerns: why will the Northern Territory government not freely give up information about shire amalgamation that is asked for? Again, the minister cannot answer those questions.
There is a mountain of correspondence, of course. Here is one from the Cox Peninsula Community Government Council. The last paragraph says the report prepared on the proposed Top End Shire is a joke, and it does not provide any confidence that the new shire will work or that it will be financially sustainable once government support funding is withdrawn.
This one is from the Chamber of Commerce regarding the Local Government Amendment Bill. The Chamber of Commerce of the Northern Territory has condemned the Northern Territory government for the introduction of the first Local Government Amendment Bill without any consultation whatsoever from stakeholders and interested parties. That is just a couple of letters. I know there is a mountain and the member for Nelson has many more examples. In fact, I have been into his office and there are mountains of letters and documents and the like.
Nobody can tell pastoralists what service fees they will have to pay, or if development moratoriums will be lifted. There is still no answer on that. There is no clear understanding of costs involved, no economic analysis has been provided. I know the issue was raised about the $180 000 CEOs being based in the larger municipal towns of the Northern Territory: Alice Springs, Darwin, Katherine and Tennant Creek, of course, which will be part of the Barkly Shire. We can only hope that the minister stays to his word when he said that he can categorically assure us that they will not be based in these townships, and they will be part of the shire.
The naming of the shires is another thing that is a big concern for those living in Litchfield. We are not just trying to single out Litchfield; it affects the whole of the Northern Territory. It is a great name - Fred Litchfield. Let us hope that there is some consultation there. We can only urge the minister that he will consult with the residents of these proposed shires and they will come up with an agreement.
The time frame for the implementation of the reform process should be extended, we believe, to properly consider the impacts and the design of a sustainable reform plan. I know the minister is convinced that this will create a better Northern Territory, and he will not be swayed on this decision. We can only hope that he is right. We are not totally convinced. We only hope that he is right because he is sticking to his guns on this.
Having said that, Mr Deputy Speaker, we support the motion by the member for Nelson which states that he has no confidence in the Northern Territory government because of the amateurish manner in which it tried to carry out local government reform, and request the government to stop the local government reform process. Stop it now, start again, slow down and involve the community from the beginning, and have a flexible timetable and get it right. It is all about the time frame, as far as the Country Liberal Party is concerned, and the rushed process. We support this motion.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank members for their contribution. The minister raised a number of issues and I thought I would try to put some in context. He said that we need to get out and look at the bigger picture. That is exactly what I have done. I spent some time in the Barkly. There is no doubt that that is an awfully big shire.
I went to Alpurrurulam and you have to really wonder if that needs to be part of the Barkly shire. They go shopping at Mt Isa, they play footy at Mt Isa, and they are miles from Tennant Creek. They are right out on the eastern side of the Northern Territory by themselves, with a few other communities. I gather that some time ago they wanted to set up some sort of regional council including those areas.
This is why I was concerned about the debate. This is why I was concerned about things being set in concrete by the government at the beginning. I am not saying that because I am trying to knock holes in the government all the time, but that is as big as Victoria. Victoria, even though it has amalgamations, probably still has about 100 councils in that area. It is pretty hard to prove that there is any community there. Alpurrurulam is over here; Muckaty is up here, and other places are down here. They are not exactly next door neighbours. You might say well, that is your idea, but I will go back to this paper. It was only printed this year.
Minister, you said we were looking at new ideas, new ways of doing things. Here is this paper: An Analysis of the New Perspective on Amalgamation in Australian Local Government. In here it says:
- As the evolution of thought on amalgamation in the various Local Government National Reports we have considered perhaps most vividly illustrates, the erstwhile consensus that ‘bigger is better’ in Australian local government has vanished.
I did not dream this up. I looked at the work that these people have done in relation to amalgamation throughout Australia over the last umpteen years and they are saying bigger is not better.
I am querying that because I want councils to work. I also want councils to be living communities. I go out to Alpurrurulam and, by geez, you are a long way from anywhere. I came around by Camooweal - I have never been on a rougher road than the road from Camooweal to Urandangi in my life - and then across from that road to Alpurrurulam. Was I praising the Lord when I hit the Northern Territory border! I must admit one thing: our roads are better than on the Queensland side.
Here is this perfectly good council. It has beautiful local government facilities; it has equipment for grading, trucks and all that. It has 1000 people. I could not believe there were 1000 people in that part of the woods. There is a community that, if you amalgamated it with a couple of other local communities, I would have to ask: why could that not be a council? Do we really need councils this big such as Lajamanu to Tobermorey Station? Do we have it right? You say you have, and that is fair enough, but I am saying, that is a debate we should have had. That is something the community should have been involved in from day one.
I am not knocking the process of reform for councils. I never have. I just do not feel that we started off with the right process. Just the size of the councils, it is hard to believe that they are councils that will include communities. They seem to me to be based on population and dollars and, surely, councils are more than just that. They are communities.
In relation to Litchfield Shire, I know the minister is saying that you have to look at the bigger picture. You have to remember that Litchfield Shire is around about 17 000 people. It is a municipality. It has been running for 22 years and government says, ‘you are dissolved’, just like that - no debate, no discussion. There was not even a discussion about whether Litchfield could have expanded its boundaries like Katherine. You are dissolved.
I get passionate, partly because I live in that area, and partly because I worked on that council, and partly because I know that the people who started that council did it with good intentions. They did not want a council which was the same as the others. One thing you have to watch here is we do not say because we have nine shires, they are mirror images. I hope the councils in Arnhem Land are not necessarily the same as councils in the desert. That is not what local government is about.
Litchfield people decided that they wanted a council that was not like Darwin with by-laws coming out your ears and UCV, parking fees and all that sort of stuff. They did not want that. They wanted a simple life in the rural area. They wanted to have a flat rate based on how much it cost to run the council, not how rich and poor they were, not how much land they own, but how much it cost. I am proud that the council put that into place; that came from the grassroots of that area and it has not changed.
Yes, there are a few townies who have gone out there because they are sick of living two inches away from their neighbours in Delfin estates. That is why people live out there and why they continue to live out there. Yes, I appreciate the minister said there are pressures out there. Of course, there are pressures out there. The place is developing fast. I appreciate there is some possible money going towards planning, but do not forget we also have the Litchfield Planning Concepts and Land Use Objectives where people do put in their contribution as well. I am not saying to have some sort of forum is not a bad thing because these things have to vary with time, but this is the Northern Territory government’s Litchfield Land Use Objectives. Much work has gone into it and many people have had input.
It is not as though this council has arrived out of the sky and does not know what it is talking about. It does know what it is talking about. It has been involved in many debates about the development of the rural area. It certainly does not want to become part of Palmerston and Darwin in the form of suburban encroachment. It wants to stay rural. There will be some small blocks, I have no doubt, but as long as they are kept to a minimum and as long as they basically have that rural feel, I do not think that is going to be a problem.
The real crunch is, minister, even though you said you will get extra money from the Commonwealth - and these things are important, I do not have a problem with that - what I have a problem with, and which is the basis of why I think many people object to what has happened, is that you have said this is the model. You have said this will be the rates. You will have said this will be the type of rating structure. You have put your stamp on our council without the community having a say whether they support that. I bet if we have a referendum on whether we want stay as we are, most people in the rural area would say ‘leave us alone’. I have never said that, even though I am tempted nowadays to say that may be the case. I have left that alone because I believe the incorporation of other areas in the greater Darwin area is important. However, the bit missing is: is that the way to go? Do we have two or three shires? No discussion; you will have one shire. It is the community that is left behind. That is why people are angry.
Minister, by setting the rates over three years you made an awful lot of people cranky because it appeared, and I still think it is, a political move. It took away the community’s chance to discuss the rating system from this preliminary business plan because you decided that you will cap the rates and you will set the rating system for the next three years. By that time, the new council will be involved. Guess what they are going to have to pick up? They are going to have to make decision about what the real cost of running the expanded Litchfield Top End Shire will be. This document certainly cannot tell you that. It is too full of holes. I have mentioned the inaccuracies and the assumptions in it. You could not say from that document that you could accurately pick the rates required to run the shire.
When people see that they are worried because this capping of the rates will take us past the next Territory election and then some poor councillors are going to have to come along and make some pretty hard decisions. I was on the council for 13 years and the period of the council I hated the most was when the rates were having to be declared. There was a certain editor of a paper, Mr Jack Ellis, who now, thankfully, lives at Cox Peninsula, who used to write for the Litchfield Times. Every time the rates went up, you would get the biggest print you have ever seen. If it went up by $5, he would still somehow make it 20% or something. He would make it as big as he could, and we used to hate it, but we still made the decisions when they needed to be made. That is what Litchfield Shire Council did when there was that large increase in the rates.
They did not like it, and I can tell you; the staff at Litchfield Shire Council hated it, because they would get clobbered. I know John Maley used to put notices in the paper saying to people, ‘please do not criticise the staff. If you do not like the rates going up, please talk to your local councillors’. Litchfield worked hard to keep the cost of rates down, even though some people would say, compared to what they were when they started, they are relatively high.
The government talks about the bigger picture. I sometimes think you then lose sight of the little picture. People like the basics out our way. They support development. They do not support development from above. The best way to get development in places like Litchfield is to do a couple of things – bituminise the roads, and Litchfield has been very successful at that; and expand the infrastructure, that is your electricity and your water. That is not happening like it used to be. I will give you a case. I lobbied for power for Hayes Creek a couple of years ago. I wrote a letter to the minister: ‘These people are 10 km from the main line. Could Power and Water say: “You can pay off the line over 10 years?”, because they use so much diesel. So, instead of paying for diesel they will pay off the cost of the line?’ But, no, they would not do that.
In other words, there needs to be certain investment from the government to help development, and some of that can be done by Litchfield Shire Council, and I believe it has done that successfully. Some of it is done by Litchfield Shire Council requiring developers to put in some of this infrastructure. For instance, in Litchfield Shire, if you have a development, you must put in power, water, and bitumen roads, and that is happening right through Litchfield. It has not happened in other places like Dundee, and that is one of the areas that a new council would have to look at. It has not happened in places like Douglas Daly, but it has happened in Litchfield, and Litchfield has developed, not necessarily by bringing in the big bucks, but by using local methods of doing things.
Minister, we could probably go on for a long time. We agree that there should be local government reform. I am certainly not against local government reforms throughout the Northern Territory, although you did say to me, if I can provide one example of you being vindictive. Well, I actually do not believe - and I stand corrected - I said that to you, I said ‘the government’. In this case, the Chief Minister was being interviewed on the radio on 4 September by Julia Christensen. She asked: ‘Can you guarantee, though, that rates will not rise as a result of the amalgamation into super shires?’. The Chief Minister said: ‘All I can say is that we need to have a rating system which supports services,’ again, telling us what to do. We have a rating system. When you say: ‘The Litchfield Shire Council, I believe that over the last few years they have a rate increase of something like 60%’ - wrong. ‘Now, that is a very significant rate increase under the current model, and when you look at the services that are provided in Litchfield, I mean, they have not been able to manage a dump’ - wrong! ‘They do not have a library’. Wrong! ‘Some of the basic services, so, mate, they cannot manage to have a pool’ – wrong! ‘We put capital into a pool and they rejected it’ – yes, explain why. ‘I say think about some of the basic services that the people of Litchfield want, and wonder whether the current model of local government has the capacity to deliver’, and she was on. That is having a go at Litchfield Shire, and that is what it has been about.
I have listened to the barbs that have come when we have raised the issue of the tip in this place. I have letters here that can show that I asked government two years before the closure of the tip to do something about it. All I got was a letter saying: ‘We have a bit of concern’, and I got no reply from one of the other ministers. I raised these issues, knowing that they were going to be a problem, but received no response. And what do we have today? We have to take our rubbish to Shoal Bay. The funny thing is, people in Dundee’s rubbish goes to Shoal Bay, would you believe, paid for by the taxpayer through Parks and Wildlife. Amazing! Where are we going with these issues?
I do believe that there are parts of government - I am not saying you, minister - that certainly do not like Litchfield Shire. Even way back, when Litchfield Shire started off, there were people saying …
Ms Lawrie: Big conspiracy.
Mr WOOD: No, I am not saying conspiracy, I just know. There were a certain number of people in the government, not necessarily politicians, who did not like the Litchfield Shire model.
Minister, I thank you for your response to what I have said. I also thank the member for Greatorex for his contribution. We will have to agree to disagree. The basics of what I am about is that we believe the model of council which has been put forward is not necessarily the right model, and that the principles on which that model are being put forward are flawed. That, to me, is dangerous, especially if you are looking to the future. I do not accept that Litchfield Shire Council is not viable into the future. I believe it is a good council, and will continue to be a good council. I believe the statement that it is not viable is simply being used as a lever to promote the argument that we have to be dissolved and join in with all the other councils. That is part of the reason I believe what you are putting forward for Litchfield Shire people at least, and other people in the area, is based on false propositions.
I do not think any one of the 250 people the other night actually said anything against the overall concept of local government reform and that there should not be some reform. However, I think they all believed the process which has been put forward is being enforced by government when it should be a case of asking the people and finding out what they want, and little things such as ‘What kind of rating system would you like?’, not ‘You will have this rating system’. Yes, you have flat rate, minister; you have said it is there for domestic. However, you have now introduced a new scheme of rating which we did not have. I know I will be a cynical person but, once you have introduced that system, lord knows what a future council will decide to introduce. That is why people do not have any faith in the system of change which has been foisted on rural people.
I hope the government will listen. If you stop the system in Litchfield Shire and surrounding areas, you will not affect the rest of the regions. If you believe the rest of the regions are all happy with their shires, that is okay for them and I am not going to deny them that process. Local government will not fall apart if it continues on for another couple of years in its present situation. Coomalie has a council, as does Cox Peninsula, Belyuen has an administrator, and Litchfield is doing perfectly okay, thank you very much.
You could rate the other areas yourself, as happens in East Arm port, if you wanted to. In the meantime, while you are looking at re-jigging local government in this so-called Litchfield Top End Shire, and while you include all the people in the process, you still could be collecting rates, and doing the things which local government would do if it was in place. There is an opportunity to stop and start again; that is what we are asking. It does not mean the entire process has to stop throughout the Territory.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I will say again, the shires are far too big and I am interested to see what happens to them in the future. Be that as it may, there is room for compromise there, minister. You could stop the process in Litchfield Shire and start it off again when the community has its say.
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Vendor Disclosure for
Land and House Purchases
Vendor Disclosure for
Land and House Purchases
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move –
That this Assembly:
(a) recognise that the government has a responsibility to ensure purchasers of land or housing have the right to protection through vendor disclosure; and
- This bill is similar to a bill I introduced in 2004 and 2005. The bill aims to introduce vendor disclosure in the sale of residential land and property in the Northern Territory.
We have tried for a long time, and we have been promised that something was going to happen. I was nearly getting to the stage where I thought I might give it a fourth try at introducing the Law of Property Amendment Bill but, as other things popped up like local government and a few other issues, I thought maybe we will just put a motion forward and that is what we did today.
I note that the Attorney-General, on 2 May this year, said in relation to the private member’s bill:
- … the government recognises that this is the member for Nelson’s latest of several attempts to introduce vendor disclosure legislation into parliament. I have no doubt he is somewhat frustrated by what he would perceive as the slow progress of the government’s amendments, but stress it is complex reform and not something that should be rushed.
He went on to say:
- The government does not object to the bill in principle. However, the bill is not supported …
A funny thing that:
- … given the concerns I have just outlined. I reiterate the government plans to introduce its own vendor disclosure legislation later this year which I am confident will address the member for Nelson’s concerns and properly protect property buyers in the Territory.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am just putting this forward as a bit of a nudge to the government. It made a promise to introduce legislation at the end of this year. I have always supported the idea that we should get rid of the concept of ‘buyer beware’ when it comes to buying a house. Houses are such an important part of our life. These days, looking at the price of houses and land, which we will not get into, a fairly substantial amount of money is required to buy both. We should ensure that people are fully protected before they make that purchase.
I am hoping, in reply, the minister will be able to give me some news on the future of a bill which may cover the issues I have raised in the motion.
Mr STIRLING (Justice and Attorney-General): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for the brevity of his remarks. He wanted to mark the spot and he has done that. He is aware, as I have previously stated publicly, that vendor disclosure legislation is scheduled to be introduced subject to final government consideration by the end of the year. We still have some sittings day left before the new year is upon us.
We have recognised the importance of vendor disclosure legislation. Our aim in initiating the reform is to make property transactions more efficient and streamlined; minimise potential problems in property transactions such as gazumping; minimise waste on multiple reports being created; and create easy and practical remedies for problems that may arise at a property transaction.
I advise the member for Nelson and the Assembly that a draft bill on vendor disclosure is being developed by the department. I have authorised its release to stakeholders for further and final consultation. It is quite an important step. It is critical when dealing with property and land transaction reform that we have comments on the bill and accompanying regulations from those who are most conversant with the everyday issues in the area.
We will seek the views of legal practitioners, real estate stakeholders and other government agencies. I will ensure that the members for Nelson and Katherine each receive a copy for their consideration as soon as that goes out the door. All of this has to be done between now and November and, short of any major issues being raised and concerns with the drafts, the vendor disclosure legislation will be introduced before the year’s end.
I appreciate the member for Nelson’s enthusiasm in this initiative. He knows, and I know he accepts that it is absolutely critical that we get the legislation right. The best way to do that is to get the comments and views of those stakeholders who will be working with this legislation on a daily basis once it is in place.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for his announcement. It certainly is important that a draft bill goes out to all sections of industry. I understand it is complex. It would be good if it could be done through members of the public. I do not know what groups of people, associations or whatever, are in existence that represent householders in the Northern Territory, but it may be that, at least when we advertise that there is a draft bill, it is put clearly out to the general public that they can also get a copy of this bill.
If you only have it with a certain part of the profession like conveyancers, legal practitioners, and real estate agents, you might have a point of view which is only their view. I am sure we would like to hear the points of view of people who have gone through the experience of buying a house and found that by the next Wet Season the ceiling had fallen through, the septic tank had blocked up and the power only worked through half the house because some of the information they were given was not right. We need to ensure that a wide range of people are able to access this draft bill and be given adequate time to comment on it.
With those words, Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome the announcement by the Attorney-General that we are getting a draft bill. Hopefully, it means I will not have to draw up a bill for the fourth time to make a point. Sometimes I am laughed at; they say that Independents cannot make a difference. I am a great believer in perseverance, and this is probably one of the longer projects on which I have persevered since I have been in parliament. It is important. I thank the government for taking on board the principle, and I will sit down and work my way through the draft bill and will be submitting comments.
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Litchfield Development Consent Authority – Removal of Middle Arm Peninsula
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, we have a motion, and I am asking people to take this seriously. I move -
That this Assembly -
- (a) reject the Minister for Planning and Lands’ decision to remove Middle Arm Peninsula from the Litchfield Development Consent Authority;
- (b) oppose the autocratic system where the minister will be the sole authority for planning decisions for this area;
- (c) support the democratic principle of an independent development consent authority where concerned citizens can be involved through public meetings; and
- (d) call on the minister to reverse this decision and reinstate Middle Arm Peninsula under the Litchfield Development Consent Authority.
Mr Deputy Speaker, at the outset, Darwin Harbour is one of our greatest assets. It is important culturally for the Larrakia people, as it is their home, and also neighbours like the Wagait people, because my brother-in-law was born at Talc Head and he was a Wagait person. It is also important for Larrakia people for food. It is important economically as a port, tourist attraction, and for fishing and recreation. It is also important for aquaculture. It is important for the environment.
Remember when we were doing the work on opposing the Elizabeth River dam, and we started to work on the number of marine creatures that live in Darwin Harbour? We went to the museum to speak Dr Helen Lawson, and we got the right books to look at. The number of species of fish in the Darwin Harbour is incredible, and many things, whilst they have been discovered, have not yet been named. All sorts of creatures live in this beautiful harbour.
We have two cities built on it, Darwin and Palmerston, and that is surrounded by Litchfield which is part of the catchment of the area. Unfortunately, we sometimes misuse the harbour. If you go around to Larrakeyah, it gets sewage pumped into it. It is also a beautiful place.
The question really is: are we going to retain that beauty? The centre of the harbour was only developed fairly recently. If you take out the issues of the leprosarium, one at Mud Island, which is Wickham Point, and one at Channel Island then, basically, the only development that has occurred there is the powerhouse. That is there because they needed deep water access because originally it was going to be a coal-fired power station. There was some aquaculture development, the Wickham Point gas plant, and that was basically it up until now.
For many years, it was in pristine condition. I remember the ABC doing a show on a squatter who lived out there. I went out to see what he was doing because he was complaining about some changes to the area. It was one of the most beautiful parts of Darwin, from a woodlands point of view, that you would ever see. It was just a beautiful area. I also remember at that time a friend of mine, Mr John O’Sullivan, who used to work at Bathurst Island. He lived in town for a while. He was a bit of a loner, a single bloke. He used to pick up the itinerants around Darwin on a Saturday morning after they had had a bad evening. He would pick them up, put them in a truck - I believe Mr Shane Stone at that time provided him with a truck - to take them out to this part of Darwin Harbour where they looked for crabs and long bums and went fishing, and to get away from the hustle and bustle of the Darwin environment which was not doing them much good.
What happened after that was, the area, which was meant to be a mining reserve, started to be opened up for extractive mining. It was allowed to be scraped under what I believe was a deal between the Mines department and the Planning department. It is not as though we are exactly short of gravel because the whole of Howard Peninsula was zoned extractive mining, but they did a deal because the Planning department thought this would be a great area for industrial. So they said there is not much point keeping all those nice trees so we will allow you to scrape it. Not only CLP minister, because they started off the bit at the front, but Labor ministers then gave permission for Middle Arm Peninsula to be scraped for gravel. Whether it was for Wickham Point, Darwin Harbour, or Bayview Canal, the place was ripped to pieces and the beautiful bush went.
There has been no rehabilitation, because the government says it is going to be industry - why bother? So you have these gravel scrapes, plenty of weeds, the countryside destroyed, the middle of the harbour looks just like a gravel pit if you fly over it. It is certainly not impressive for the middle of your harbour.
If you look through the Litchfield Planning Concepts and Land Use Objectives, the Planning people have decided that the middle of the harbour would be industrial. They make it clear, industrial with certain conditions, and those conditions, which is important in this debate – this is clause 9.1.2, Industrial Development on the Middle Arm Peninsula, and this is from the Northern Territory Planning Scheme, a Labor Party government document. It says:
1. The purpose of this clause is to limit the nature of industrial development on Middle Arm Peninsula ...
(a) the processing of natural gas into liquified natural gas or other liquid for export by sea;
4. The consent authority must not consent to development that is not in accordance with this clause.
That is where we stood. It also had Glyde Point which gets a mention in the Litchfield Land Use Objectives:
- Glyde Point, locality 7.
Intent
Major industrial development including an LNG plant and associated port facilities and gas-based manufacturing which may be a catalyst for further industrial development.
It then quotes the issues:
- Identification of areas of conservation and recreation in association with proposed Beagle Gulf Marine Park …
We do wait:
- Environmental assessment and identification of measures required to minimise potential impacts, and
Identification and necessary infrastructure corridors.
That was the basis of the planning concepts approved by this government.
The government closed down Glyde Point as an option without any public discussion or an environmental impact statement, although I saw some letters going around which said the government had started an environmental impact statement but stopped it - that was a funny thing to do - without looking at alternatives. They said if the Environment Centre NT and AFANT were against it, it was not a good idea. I agree with them. If you get the government’s map of the area you will see that planners, when they tried to plan for Glyde Point, drew what you would call the straight line method of planning which is up there, across all the mangroves, back there and down there, and everything in there is now called development zone. Wonderful sort of planning; I love that sort of plan. To me, that is one of the problems.
Just because the Environment Centre and AFANT said that is not a good idea: ‘You are going to upset the biodiversity of the area and, therefore, do not go ahead with it’, we should have scrapped it. We should have looked at whether there were any alternatives. There are rainforests and mangrove forests there, and also some creeks. We should have said we will look at it again, and see whether we can put discrete development - even if it is heavy industry - amongst the environment. Not use the square system the planners used but the round geographical lines which follow creeks and keep rainforests out, that do not wipe out umpteen kilometres of mangroves. We should have had a chance to look at an alternative, but we did not.
If believe this is a conspiracy – you have all heard of conspiracy. It started a couple of months ago when Dow Chemicals were on the front page of the Northern Territory News. I think the government was under pressure to allow more industry in the middle of the harbour, and to offset any flack from the people, and the Glyde Point excuse was raised. I do not know whether I have that ...
Mr Warren: Be careful.
Mr WOOD: What are you being careful about? What I am saying is that, instead of going up to Glyde Point, the Chief Minister made this statement - and I do not know what I am being careful for as it is written in the Northern Territory News. The Chief Minister said:
- From my discussions over six months, people would rather see further development on Middle Point than go to Glyde Point.
In other words, was that the reason, or was it too expensive? That is what I would ask because the minister for Planning started to use the figure of, ‘oh, it is going to cost $400m’, I think you mentioned, minister, somewhere …
Ms Lawrie: Yes.
Mr WOOD: Well, that is a funny thing. That is what you get when you are putting infrastructure into the Northern Territory. What was also ignored when the Chief Minister spoke about that, was that it was conveniently forgotten that 7600 people signed a petition in 2001 which said that Darwin Harbour would be declared a National Marine Conservation Park, with only essential development permitted. There was another petition in 2001 signed by 6332 people which said that no further development occur on Middle Arm Peninsula until a totally independent assessment of the cumulative effects of such development is completed. That has not been done. The other one was that we do not want it developed at all.
Yet, the Chief Minister said: ‘From my discussions over six months, people would rather see further development on Middle Point than go to Glyde Point’. Well, that conflicts with what I have. Those petitions do not say that. The Chief Minister obviously ignored all the people who were not happy with Middle Arm becoming the industrial suburb of the harbour. The government tried to blame the CLP for inheriting Glyde Point. Absolute rubbish! I read that. Yes, I know, minister, you will say, all this.
The reality is, although this document is a relatively older document – 2002 – you had only been in for two years - this document – this one - is entirely yours. This is no one else’s. This is not inherited from the CLP. This one only came out at the beginning of this year and you have been in power for nearly seven years. This one, you had full control over. If you did not like the idea of Glyde Point, you certainly had plenty of chances to take it out of the system.
There was more spin in that media release on 3 October, about Glyde Point being protected. It spoke about the conservation of Leaders Creek. The funny thing is, you pick up this map again and you find Leaders Creek has a whopping big conservation zone over it ...
A member: Not all of it.
Mr WOOD: True, but that is not the impression you get from this particular document, because it says: ‘Glyde Point is adjacent to the conservation areas of Gunn Point …’, and, ‘The Chief Minister and the minister for Environment and Planning announced that Glyde Point will be re-zoned from industrial land to public open space, including a 500 m conservation zone around Leaders Creek’. You actually have put it adjacent to the existing conservation zone. It is not as though Leaders Creek was not getting some help. That did not come out in the media release.
The other difficulty I have is why have you called it ‘public open space’? If it is that important, because do not forget, you spoke about the significant conservation values, why was it not zoned ‘conservation’ …
Ms Lawrie: Recreation.
Mr WOOD: No, it ain’t. So, hang on, motor bikes, quad bikes and who knows what are going to go through an area of significant conservation value. Well, it is a bit of a zone at cross purposes, by what you are saying.
To ensure all this happens, the minister and the Chief Minister have decided to remove a section of the NT Planning Scheme related to Middle Arm development. That is the area 9.1.2 that you are hoping to remove. Here we have a plan that has taken years to develop. Here is a plan that if you wanted to change your piece of land - and I know a person in Berry Springs who would like to change a piece of land who has been told: ‘You have to wait until we look at the total picture again, and then we might look at that’. But the government is going to do it itself very quickly, because it wants gas associated development in the middle of the harbour. So, it is going to take out this clause that says you cannot do that. That is phase one.
That means that if you want to have smelter and you thought you were going to go to Glyde Point, you do not need to do that. You can go right in the middle of the harbour, if it needs gas. If you want a fertilizer factory that needs gas, you can go right in the middle of the harbour. If Dow Chemicals wants gas, it can go right in the middle of the harbour. That is what the change will do and that is why I say, minister, you should not have just said Glyde Point, end of the story.
I believe it needed a lot more community input, public consultation and scientific analysis. Woodside did a lot of work on that area when they thought of bringing their gas in from the Timor Sea. I think they were required to do environmental impact statements. The only people who wanted to wipe out the entire coastline of mangroves there was the Planning department because they put the purple patch over the whole thing. I would not have supported that, either, but that did not mean I would not have at least wanted to have a look at a detailed analysis of the possibility of doing something different. The Chief Minister is now trying to attract, according to the media release, at a secret meeting, INPEX to Darwin ...
Ms Lawrie: Secret meeting? She reported it to parliament. It is hardly secret.
Mr WOOD: I am using the media release on that matter and they reported it as a secret meeting. Surely, you can trust the paper when it comes to these things?
Ms Lawrie: Come on! She reported to parliament.
Mr WOOD: All right. Anyway, that is what it said in the document. I know the Chief Minister has denied the case that she said that there was a more relaxed environmental protection policy. She has said that was untrue, but that what was in the NT News on 24 September this year.
Regardless of that, to ensure the government gets what it wants, it has decided that the independent body, the democratic body that approves development applications in the middle of the harbour is going to go. It has decided to use a section of the Planning Act, section 83(2), which says the minister may, by notice in the Gazette, amend the division area specified in a notice under subsection (1), which the minister has done. She has gazetted. She basically put a note in the Gazette, I think on 19 September, saying no more Development Consent Authority for the middle of the harbour. There was not a media release about that one. Many people read the Gazette. It is one of those popular papers that many people see. It has popped out in the Gazette that we will not have a Development Consent Authority as we know it. Yes, we will have the minister for the Development Consent Authority, but we will not have an independent Development Consent Authority to deal with planning applications in part of Litchfield Shire in the middle of the harbour.
There will be no more independent assessment of planning applications because the minister will have full control. You can write her a letter. The department will put an advertisement in the paper, saying ‘Smelter, Dow Chemicals. What do you think?’ Instead of being able to turn up at a public meeting …
Ms Lawrie: Do not mislead.
Mr WOOD: Instead of being able to turn up at a public meeting where you can put your proposals to a five-person, independent …
Ms Lawrie: Five person.
Mr WOOD: Five-person, independent Development Consent Authority, you will not be able to do that any more. You could turn up at a meeting - could, if the minister wanted to call a meeting. That meeting does not necessarily have to be public ...
Ms Lawrie: I am on the record saying there will be public hearings.
Mrs MILLER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am continuously listening to cross-talking across the Chamber while the member for Nelson is trying to put his argument. The minister for Planning and Infrastructure has plenty of opportunity to put her point forward. She absolutely hates anyone else talking when she is speaking. I ask that she respect the member for Nelson and wait until it is her turn.
Ms LAWRIE: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker. I am only raising concern about misleading the House. I have been quite clear on that. I was talking about misleading, which is a serious thing to do in the Chamber. I am trying to ensure that the member for Nelson is accurate.
Madam SPEAKER: I do not believe that the member for Nelson was actually saying that the minister has misled parliament. I do not think that is what you were saying, was it, member for Nelson?
Mr WOOD: The member is saying that I misled the parliament.
Madam SPEAKER: It will be helpful if there was less conversation across the Chamber. Please continue, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I was saying, the minister will now take control of planning matters. The minister will be the Development Consent Authority. The minister will not be a five-person, independent authority that will make that decision as it does in every other part of Litchfield. The minister will make the decision. She might put out an application in the paper for comment, and I will write a letter. Well, that is nice. It could end up in the bin. If I write a letter to the Development Consent Authority as it is today, I will get a letter saying, ‘You are invited to the normal meeting on such and such a date to put forward your opinion’. The minister can have a meeting, but it is not compulsory. She can call a meeting, but it is not compulsory. We have had a change in that we now have an autocratic system where the minister is the person who makes the decisions. In other words, we have gone backwards. I would have been expecting, and I have argued this before, that the Development Consent Authority should be a mobile Development Consent Authority and go over the whole Territory when it needs to. That means you are including the people in the decision-making process. You are allowing an independent authority to make the decisions. Now we have taken one step backwards.
Here we have the centre of the harbour, with some of the most important developments that will occur in our beautiful harbour. That is why I started off this speech talking about the importance of our harbour. Right smack in the middle, they can argue that it is not. Well, why do you think they call it Middle Arm? Because it is on the left or the right side? It is in the middle. We can argue whether some industry should go there, and I have probably lost that debate. I would rather see housing go there because at least with housing you would get some trees and it would look a lot better in the middle of the harbour.
Obviously, the government is determined that this is where we are going to have industry. There were some restrictions on that up until now, and they are taking those restrictions away. They are removing the clauses in the Northern Territory Planning Scheme deliberately to allow the people they should have had at Glyde Point to now go into the middle of the harbour. Where is a smelter going to go if someone comes here and says, ‘I want to build a smelter and I need gas?’ Where will it go now? Where will a fertiliser factory go if they want to come to the Territory and they need gas? Where will INPEX go if it wants to come to Darwin? Where will Dow Chemicals go if it wants gas? In the middle of the harbour.
This clause was meant to keep the type of industry to a relatively low Winnellie-type industrial base - something I still did not like, not because they can pollute the area so much, but why do you want industrial sheds in the middle of a beautiful harbour for? The harbour is a tourist attraction because of its pristine beauty, except for East Arm Port. We can plant a few trees and do a bit of landscaping around the port. That would be revolutionary for this part of the world; it is not revolutionary in other industrial developments in some parts of Australia. Except for the port and the tank that was never quite that big when I looked at the photographs of Wickham Point, at least our harbour is still in pretty good nick. If you go to the other side of the port you look out to Blayden Point, which is going to be industrial. Have a look on the map. Blayden Point comes right up to the sea. That is where we used to burn the Vietnamese boats. That will be industrial, adding more industry to our harbour.
We had a choice, I think, and we have missed it. We had a choice to keep the harbour pretty well pristine. I have always supported development on the harbour that needs attachment to the sea. I supported Wickham Point. I am not happy with that great big tank, but I did not think it was going to be that big, but it needed attachment to West Arm because of its deep water. Other development does not need to go into that harbour. It can be offset from the harbour. That is why I argued the other day about using Berrimah Farm - you just pick up on that. Don’t go to say: ‘Oh gee, silly old bloke. He is always knocking things’. Look at the map. There is a wedge that goes straight to the Darwin Port from Berrimah Farm. There is an ideal opportunity to put some of your development there, in line with the airport. That is the normal place to put a lot of industrial development.
You are just getting good ideas at the moment and saying: ‘There is a space. Put some houses there. That will shut the opposition up who have been whingeing about the lack of land releases’. That is not the way you do planning. Here is a site which is already industrial. We have a major power line going through there, by the way. It has a prison on one side, and it heads straight into the Port of Darwin, and we are going to just put houses there, yet we are happy as Larry to put whatever we want in the middle of the harbour. I would rather you swapped. Put the housing you want on Berrimah Farm in the middle of the harbour. People might have a few sandflies, but at least they have a nice place to live. They do not have the approaches to Darwin Airport over their heads.
This whole thing about closing off Glyde Point is a bit of a con. You are basically saying: ‘We have had some industries ring us up and say they would love to come to Darwin, but Glyde Point is a long way away, can we help them?’ ‘Well, we are looking at Glyde Point. Hang on, yes, it is a pretty expensive area to go to; you would have to $400m worth of infrastructure’. I know that the Litchfield Land Use Objectives do have these great maps in them and one is on infrastructure. There are lots of red lines going to Glyde Point. In fact, we have actually purchased some of the corridors already –amazing! They are going to be great corridors going nowhere. The gas pipeline goes round here down Townend Road, which takes 100 m off that road. We have done the Goode Road one, and I think we have been working with Laurence Ah Toy to take some land off him. Now, the infrastructure goes nowhere. We have a town in Murrumujuk. What happened to that? Not going to build that town? It has been on the plans for a long time. You could pay for half the infrastructure by selling the land off at Murrumujuk - no problem at all.
I believe big business has come to town and said: ‘We want to be close to the port; we do not want to be way up there’. So the minister said: ‘Let us have a look at Glyde Point. No, no, no, the Environment Centre said it is no good; AFANT said it is no good’. They did not come and ask me but I would have said it is no good under that present planning zone they have there. We did not even bother to have a look to see whether we could actually work out some way of mixing the environment and the development. We have just said no. I have not seen an environmental impact statement. I would have loved to have seen an environmental impact statement so we could have debated this a bit more fully.
However, we have said no. Why have we said no? Because the government has made up its mind that we need to attract these big companies such as Dow Chemicals and INPEX. Let us get rid of any sort of impediments, let us get rid of 9.1.2 of the Northern Territory Planning Scheme - that has fixed that. Let us make sure those pesky people on the Litchfield Development Consent Authority do not upset our plans. Let us pull them out of the way.
What annoys me, minister, is that the CLP once tried to do this in Litchfield Shire - remove the top part of Gunn Point from the Development Consent Authority. All hell broke loose. I can bet my bottom dollar that the Labor Party, at that time, would have been complaining bitterly about the lack of process. You have done the same thing. You have taken a right away from the people. You have reduced the power of people to have a say in it through an independent authority. You have taken a backward step - and a deliberate backward step that people in the Darwin area need to know about; that a Development Consent Authority which would have made independent assessments of industry - now heavy industry because you has just taken that clause out - is not going to have the same sort of say as they normally would have had. You are now being entrusted with the power to make those decisions. Unfortunately, to me, for a Labor Party which talks about open and transparent government to do that is just a total shame.
The government has to rethink this because this is just the wrong way for the government to operate.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, your time has expired.
Ms LAWRIE (Planning and Lands): Madam Speaker, on behalf of the government I reject the motion by the member for Nelson. The motion relates to the recent announcement by government to locate industry at Middle Arm and not Glyde Point.
This government is very proud of that decision. We believe that decision advances our economic future and also protects some of our most pristine environments. Glyde Point is considered by many to be a special place worth conserving. It has a pristine environment loved by Territory nature lovers and fishermen alike. The Environment Centre of the Northern Territory and the Australian Marine Conservation Society facilitated a compelling report titled Rainforest to Reef on the Glyde Point region. The report outlined the compelling case for conservation of this region. Of the 833 flora species found in the Glyde Point area, 32 are listed as being of conservation concern. Sixteen are listed under the Northern Territory legislation as endangered, vulnerable or near threatened. Of the nine species of concern found in the rainforest at Glyde Point, two are listed species only found in rainforests within this area. The area is home to more than 60 fauna species of conservation concern, including five endangered species, 10 vulnerable species, two near threatened species and 15 migratory species. Forty species of migratory birds use the habitat along the proposed service corridor, and 30 migratory species intermittently use the Glyde Point site.
There is a significant portion of the world’s remaining dugong population found in northern Australian waters, including around Glyde Point. Internationally, its status is vulnerable to extinction, but in the NT it is listed as threatened.
Our decision to preserve Glyde Point has been welcomed by groups such as the Environment Centre, the Australian Marine Conservation Society, and the Amateur Fishermen’s Association of the Northern Territory. Just as importantly, we believe, it has been welcomed by the community at large; almost everyone other than the CLP and the member for Nelson.
As well as protecting Glyde Point, this announcement was about helping to set up the economic future of the Territory. While under the Martin government the economy is currently booming, we cannot be complacent. This decision is a core part of our plans to grow a robust and sustainable economy. The ConocoPhillips plant created hundreds of jobs, and the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on construction of that project flowed through to all sectors of our community. The benefits continue with the long-term full-time jobs at the plant. This decision by government opens the door to this economic opportunity being repeated.
The area we have zoned for development in Middle Arm is around 12 000 ha; about the size of Darwin’s northern suburbs. That is considered enough land for more than 20 years of development. The area already has gas-based development, and it made sense to keep it at the same place. Middle Arm is close to the port and the railway, and also to Palmerston and Darwin, which is very important to the business community, and to potential investors.
There is some history to Middle Arm which is relevant to this debate. The former CLP government had always identified the whole of the Middle Arm Peninsula for industrial development ...
Mr Wood: You could have turned that over. You could have changed it.
Ms LAWRIE: The member for Blain says no. I will show him the Darwin Regional Structure Plan of 1984. I will point out to the Assembly, Middle Arm. I will point out the area of Middle Arm shaded purple which is industrial. You may shake your head no, but the facts speak for themselves, member for Blain. The Darwin Regional Structure Plan in 1984 identified the majority of Middle Arm as industrial. This plan also introduced the concept of damming the Elizabeth River to create a recreation lake which would have also flooded Mitchell Creek in the process. The CLP’s planning concepts for Cox Peninsula also introduced proposals to dam Woods Inlet, and two of the upper reaches of West Arm.
The Darwin Regional Land Use Structure Plan of 1990 continued to identify Middle Arm as industrial. The member for Blain asked what this has to do with it. It has a lot to do with it. The member for Nelson has tried to run the argument in debate in this Assembly tonight that this is new; that industrial zoning for Middle Arm is new. I am showing here, 1984, the majority of Middle Arm was zoned industrial which is why it is relevant to this debate, member for Blain. You can shake your head no, but the facts speak for themselves. The CLP bury their heads in the sand when it comes to reality.
The Darwin Regional Land Use Structure Plan in 1990 continued to identify Middle Arm as industrial. The Litchfield Area Plan of 1992 zoned Middle Arm for future use which identified that the land would be required for future development and, again, the map speaks for itself. It is earmarked for industry.
The peninsula was rezoned in 2003 by the Martin Labor government, referred to by the member for Nelson in his Litchfield Land Use. This was rezoned from Future Use to Development and, at the same time, 95% of the mangroves of Darwin Harbour were also rezoned to Conservation.
This map shows the industrial zoned area of Middle Arm, a dramatically different zoning from under the CLP government. The CLP government had not protected, with a Conservation zone, the entire buffer of Middle Arm connecting to the harbour. There is a big difference between the two maps, and I am happy …
Mr Warren: Shame.
Mr Mills: Think about what you are saying, member for Goyder.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Warren: It is my electorate and I am concerned about it.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Warren: I am disappointed that you and your government did not do anything to protect it.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Goyder!
Mr Mills: I was never in government!
Mr Warren: This government has done a lot to protect it.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Mills: I was never in government!
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Goyder! Please continue, minister.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, why is the zoning in 2003 relevant and why is the Conservation zone around the Industrial zone within Middle Arm relevant? It is extremely relevant. The member for Nelson likes to use the term: ‘We will have industry in the middle of the harbour’. That is an incredibly misleading term. We have an Industrial zone land locked within Middle Arm. That is a very different thing from what you are trying to peddle, member for Nelson, which is ‘industry in the middle of the harbour’. That evokes industry carte blanche, according to this 1984 map. There are very different Industrial zones between the two, very big …
Mr Wood interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: A significant area of Middle Arm is now zoned Conservation ...
Mr Wood: Yes, you could not build on it.
Ms LAWRIE: We have 1200 – the member for Nelson says: ‘You could not build on it’. That is wrong. It is patently wrong …
Mr Wood: Industry.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: We have 1200 ha of land zoned and available for industrial development. The Conservation zone incorporates the mangroves and provides a significant buffer around the Industrial zoned land. The development of oil and gas-related industry within Middle Arm was initiated by the ConocoPhillips facility at Wickham Point. Middle Arm has been identified as a backup to East Arm and provides land for industrial development, and it has through the decades. This is not just a recent phenomenon; it has through the decades.
It makes sense to continue the future development of more industries at Middle Arm because of its proximity to major infrastructure such as the railway and East Arm Wharf. Member for Nelson, government has to deal with the reality of the location of our infrastructure, our port, our wharf, our railway and roads. That is the reality of economic development. Government intends to maintain control over the direction of development at Middle Arm because of its strategic importance to the Territory …
Mr Wood: Now we know - strategic importance.
Ms LAWRIE: … and for this reason, yes, I will be the consent authority for development proposals ...
Mr Wood: It is not good enough for the public.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, if the member for Nelson wants to constantly interject, it means that other members of the Chamber are unable to hear me.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, please cease interjecting.
Mr Wood: I am sorry, Madam Speaker.
Ms LAWRIE: The conventional development assessment process is applied as it is for the other divisions of the Development Consent Authority. All development applications will still go on public exhibition and the public will have their opportunity to comment. I am on the record as saying there will be public hearings. The member for Nelson has very dangerously tried to mislead the public on that. I am in the Chamber on the record. I am the Development Consent Authority for the area and I am saying there will be public hearings. I am not going to be putting letters from the public in the bin, as you asserted. I find that abhorrent.
There will also be a separate assessment process under the Environment Assessment Act, which, again, is an open and transparent process which provides opportunities for the community to comment on new development proposals. We have two tiers here.
This is the same process that currently applies in the East Arm Industrial Area. In 1998, it was the former CLP government that made the minister the consent authority for all development applications at East Arm following the introduction of the East Arm Control Plan. This was in recognition of the strategic importance of the industrial development of this area. The planning processes we have put in place are appropriate. They are standard in strategic development zones, and they are in place in similar zones around Australia and here in the Territory. The member for Nelson talked about these processes as though it is the first time they have been contemplated in the western world. He claimed that the government is treating the community as fools. He is the one treating them as fools as he tries to pretend that this is something new and something revolutionary.
This government is proud of our record to protect the harbour. It was this government that introduced mangrove protection, the Darwin Harbour Management Plan, and established the Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee. The EPA will have an extensive role in the development of Middle Arm to ensure our harbour is protected. Each development will be different in its nature, and will undergo environmental assessment. The environmental assessment will be done by the environment agency investigating and determining appropriate environmental conditions and safeguards. That will all apply. The member for Nelson likes to lead us all to believe that those environmental processes will not be applied ...
Mr Wood: No, he did not. The independent authority is …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: As the Environment minister, I have also ordered a strategic environmental assessment in relation to gas-based industry at Middle Arm under the Environmental Assessment Act; that is, this strategic environmental assessment will provide a high level approach to environmental concerns which would need to be taken into account in any proposed development. Further, environmental safeguards, member for Nelson: you have called for it; I have already sought it. Not only does such an assessment ensure the protection ...
Mr Wood: This is your excuse for getting rid of the DCA.
Ms LAWRIE: No, it is not an excuse. It is good governance.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: Not only does such an assessment ensure the protection of the harbour, it also provides potential investors with a very clear understanding of the sort of environmental conditions they are going to have to meet in order to get any development considered for approval.
The CLP, in response to our announcement, was both incompetent and embarrassing, and really only served to highlight just how out of touch they are. The Leader of the Opposition said in a media release: ‘The Martin government has chosen planning processes reminiscent of the age of Queen Victoria’. Perhaps she should have said that they were reminiscent of the Stone Age, as it was Shane Stone who brought in very similar planning processes.
As I mentioned, the planning processes we are putting in place at Middle Arm are no different to those in place at East Arm Port ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, the reality is that these planning processes exist throughout Australia at strategic industrial zones. The fact that the CLP believes that they are from the age of Queen Victoria just shows how out of touch they truly are. They are certainly not ready to govern.
We know that the CLP does not get out and talk to business, but I encourage them to get out and try to convince business of their policy against development at Middle Arm. As I mentioned, the previous CLP government set up Middle Arm as a future development zone for industry. It is the Martin government which brought it to fruition ...
Mr Wood: It is my motion, not the CLP’s.
Mrs Miller: That is right.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, the member for Nelson has clearly formed a coalition with the CLP. The Whip has been checking to ensure that he is talking to get a chance to go out and get a coffee ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, the CLP set up Middle Arm as a future development zone for industry; it was the Martin government which brought it to fruition. The current leader of the CLP has decided to wipe away this history and pretend that this was just decided last week.
The environmental assessment processes of this government will play an important arm of any proposed developments at Middle Arm. In stark contrast to the CLP, this government is introducing an Environmental Protection Authority through legislation being passed in the Chamber tomorrow. The CLP argued at the election that it would not have one. You need to bear this in mind when they talk about their concerns for Middle Arm.
In today’s motion, the member for Nelson talked about democratic principles and concerned citizens. Yet, in the last sittings of parliament, he voted against any member of the community getting a say on nuclear facilities. We presented a motion saying that Territorians should get a say on any proposed nuclear facility - something that everyone else in Australia had been offered aside from Territorians. The member for Nelson voted against that. Where is the democratic principle there?
Mr Wood interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Ms LAWRIE: The concerned citizens he referred to in his motion get absolutely no say on a nuclear facility according to the member for Nelson.
While we are talking about nuclear power, it is worth asking where is the CLP’s planned paper on uranium enrichment? Apparently, 200 people made submissions and they have heard nothing. Dave Tollner says that the Leader of the Opposition is putting the paper together. Where is it? Where will her uranium enrichment occur?
Mr Wood interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Nelson!
Ms LAWRIE: In closing, the announcement made by the government sets up our economic future and protects our pristine environment. The planning processes we have put in place are appropriate and they are standard for industrial development zones. We reject the motion and we support the idea of sustainable economic development in the Territory.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I support the motion and wholeheartedly reject the argument that has just been presented by the minister. You gave a selective reading of 27 years of a CLP government. You can pick what you want from that to craft a position to sustain and justify a position you have taken, which I declare to be wrong and ill-considered. You are going to be opposed for what you are proposing. When the community get a grasp of what you have decided to do, they will come out against you. It is dead wrong.
This is in the electorate of the member for Goyder, sitting over the back there. I have to admit that I have been out to Middle Arm without your permission.
I will pay credit to the member for Nelson. Before he was in parliament, he took a position that the CLP - at that time I was not a member, but a fellow traveller. I knew the position that they had taken with regards to the damming of Elizabeth River. I listened to that and I took a position that was similar to the member for Nelson. Ultimately, the CLP government took a different position in response to what the community was saying. They did not want the harbour dammed, and credit to the member for Nelson for playing a leading role in that community action which resulted in a CLP government listening to people and taking a new position.
You can take any time in the history of the CLP and pick a spot that justifies a position that you are trying to take today. I will not be a part of that. As a member of parliament, I have been to the community meetings listening to the proposals regarding the development in Middle Arm as it is currently presented. I did not agree with that and I spoke publicly about that at the time, and I continue to hold the same view. It may be inconvenient, minister, to consider that there can be varying positions taken by members of a party that is not the Labor Party, but we are not a monolith. We change and move as we progress and grow. We are able to think for ourselves and form new positions. It may be comfortable for you to pick out a spot in history and say: ‘Well, the CLP did this, therefore, it is all right for us’. That is absolute nonsense and it is dishonest to the extreme!
This business needs to be attended to properly. The people will not wear it. There is a small opposition and you seem to enjoy that. You can belt them up in the corner, and you spin arguments which are offensive to the member for Nelson, and all 19 of you sitting over there thoroughly enjoy it. You seem to think you can do what you like, but that day is going to come to an end.
I found it very difficult to understand all the little arguments and props to your argument which were running. It started with special birds that are living at Glyde Point. You set that scene, that all those lovely, exotic and unusual things are happening over there and, of course, there is no wildlife or anything over there. I would like to see the study over there. I guess if the argument changed you would find some weird bird over there, but that does not suit your case. You have that assessment done over there; this is the way we manage these sorts of activities. I have been around long enough to see how governments manipulate arguments to suit their own purposes. You have zoned it as Public Open Space. I thought by the strength of your argument it was going to be exclusive Conservation zone but no, that is just a convenient argument to run to suit the argument.
You mentioned Dow Chemicals as sitting behind there. The Chief Minister has had suggestions of wonderful things which may possibly occur, and we have to find the path of least resistance. What is the easiest thing we could possibly do as a government to encourage industry into the Northern Territory? When you are dealing with multinationals, they will play hardball and I do not think you guys are half a match for them. They will find the path of least resistance, the path which will lead to the greatest bottom line for their own interests, as we have found already. They are going to find the door open; come on in, come on in, and in they come to the middle of the harbour.
I opposed the second stage of the development over there. I was uncomfortable with the original development. I had the same position as the member for Nelson, and that was a public position taken at public meetings which no member of government, when they were new to government, attended. Most people did not realise that was the development that was going to occur.
I, like the member for Nelson, was very much surprised to find the size of that tank. In fact, as a new member - I was not in government but I was member of the backbench sitting over there where the member for Brennan now sits - and I was led to believe, as many were, probably the member for Karama also, that you would not really be able to see the tanks. That was how it was presented; I saw the graphics and what was presented and what now appears on our profile in the harbour is not like I thought it was going to be, let alone going to the next stage, and the stage after that, and setting the whole place up for development.
As I said, multinationals are going to look for the path of least resistance. Last week, I had the opportunity in Perth to seek a briefing from a multinational company which has a significant interest in development in the Northern Territory. In times past they have had extensive exploration at Glyde Point as the, then, preferred place for development. Because it was a government policy they looked there. They could see the potential there, and there are ways of working out the development of an area for downstream production of gas.
They looked at that, and they also told me that now the door is open over in the middle of the harbour. Well, with all due respect, that is certainly where we are going to go. Do you think they have chosen to go from there over to here because of dugongs or something? No, because it is going to be a lot easier for them. Their bottom line will be improved, and the opportunities for them will increase ...
Mr Stirling: That is a bad thing, is it?
Mr MILLS: Sorry?
Mr Stirling: That is a bad thing? Yes, okay.
Mr MILLS: I could not understand the Deputy Chief Minister’s mumblings. The issue here is right at the bottom of this, they are going to find the opportunity which is most conducive to development; the easiest path to take. With all the clever little arguments and the colourful maps which have been presented, and the smorgasbord history lesson which has been concocted to craft a position that is suitable to justify the current position taken, I find it offensive, and I believe it is wrong.
The middle of the harbour is not the place for major development. I can only imagine if the Labor Party was in opposition where it would be now. I find it astonishing to consider the positions that were once taken by members of the Labor Party on environmental and development issues when they were in opposition. Now it is an extraordinary position they have taken with the strangest argument. It is like something from the 1960s, one of those weird hallucinogenic arguments where you do not know what is real because there is a strange mass. In 1984, for goodness sake, I was not in the Northern Territory, yet I am responsible for the 1984 position. Rubbish!
I will give my support to the member for Nelson on this matter, and that is complete support. This is the right position to take and I will resist the position that is taken by government.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thought I would read something and see whether the government recognises where it came from:
- Planning law should promote balanced development and ensure that all stakeholders in development have a clear role in decision taking … ensure that the role of all stakeholders in development - the community, developers, local government and the minister - have a clear recognition in the Northern Territory Planning laws … ensure planning law supports consent authorities with a full range of options for decision-making.
That was taken from the Northern Territory ALP policy platform, 2005 election. If that is the platform, minister, you are not following it. You are not supporting the consent authorities. There has been much discussion about whether industry should go to the middle of the harbour, whether industry should go to Glyde Point, which is an important debate which will go on a lot longer. I still say that the government is short-sighted in wiping out the possibility of using Glyde Point.
I certainly would not want all these particular creatures at risk, but you should take one note, minister. You mentioned dugongs. There are dugongs in Darwin Harbour. When Wickham Point was being developed, there was an environmental impact statement to ensure that the dugongs were not going to be harmed. That is what I would expect government to do at Glyde Point.
That is why I am saying you should not have wiped Glyde Point off the map as a possible future area for heavy industry ...
Mr Stirling: You could put up signs under water saying: ‘Dugongs do not enter’.
Mr WOOD: As simple as that might sound, minister, you can find out where dugong live. You do know where they feed, and you can develop accordingly. That is what science is about and that is when you should use it.
The issue is about this government’s denying the people in the Territory having an independent Development Consent Authority to make those decisions.
The minister started saying I would not support the motion against the Muckaty radioactive waste facility. That was a purely political statement by a government that does not support Lucas Heights. If we had a planning authority, let the planning authority have a look at the site, have a public meeting and let that Development Consent Authority have a look at it. We do not have a Development Consent Authority there. It would be a normal development. The issue for you about a radioactive waste facility is political. It is not about democracy.
Yes, yes, yes. Your motion was about getting at the federal government and knocking Lucas Heights. That is what it was about. If there was a normal planning scheme, I would expect a Development Consent Authority to look at that issue, to bring up the environmental impact statement, which the Commonwealth has to do anyway, and allow people to go to public meetings. That is where the public would have its input. That is where you would have an independent Development Consent Authority assess the development. That is what I am saying you should do for the middle of the harbour.
We have an independent Development Consent Authority now that looks after the middle of the harbour. Do you think it does not have enough brains to look at strategic development? Are you telling Mr Peter McQueen that his group for the Litchfield area does not have enough brains to be able to make decisions independently of you? You are saying it is of such a strategic nature that they cannot do that and, therefore, you will take them away and you will be the king pin; you will make the decisions.
It is in Litchfield Shire. You are even taking away two members of the Litchfield Shire. It is their shire and you are taking those two people’s rights way to have direct input in the decision-making process in their shire. You are going backwards. You are taking away that particular right which we have had for, I do not know how many years since the Development Consent Authority, or the Planning Authority was there.
By having a planning authority, or by having a Development Consent Authority, we are opening up development; we are opening up the process for the community to take part in what happens. What you have done is said: ‘Oh, no, they might muck up. They might go against something that we need. We might have this company over here saying: “We have a trillion dollar development and we need to do it now!” We cannot have a group of miserable peasants here, five of them, that might actually upset the process. We will get them out of the way and we will do it ourselves. Don’t you worry, we will pass it through parliament next week, and she’ll be right. We will get rid of all these stupid little limitations here in 9.1.2. No more of this, we are not having this any more. We will take that clause out, the one that says - oops, that’s it, it’s gone, that has fixed it. Development Consent Authority – oh, in the NT party platform – no, that cannot mean that, we will get rid of that too. And now, everything is cosy, people will come in’.
Yes, they can have environmental impact statements and do all that, but there will not be the independent body that will assess it. There will be the government which, on one hand, supports these companies coming in, and on the other hand, is not willing to let an independent body make a decision on it.
You are now in a conflict of interest with your government’s own policy. You are the Minister for Planning and Lands, and the Environment, and you are part of a government that supports this big industry coming in, etcetera. The Development Consent Authority at least allows a hands-off approach by the government. It allows your appointed group of people to make a decision on behalf of the people in the Northern Territory. It has taken that away. That is what this issue is about. It is the issue that I remember the CLP government, Mr Hatton, tried to do with Gunn Point in relation to, and it is the same type of thing …
Ms Lawrie: No, it is not.
Mr WOOD: It is. It is in relation to Murrumujuk township; the township the CLP government at that time wanted to be placed approximately 5 m off the cliffs. Litchfield Shire Council at that time had three members on the Planning Authority, so they had the numbers to defeat any proposal the government wanted to put forward. I think they knocked it back two or three times. They said no development that close to the cliffs. So what did Mr Hatton do at the time? ‘Can’t have that, can’t have that independent authority mucking up our great plans. We will scrap that area from the Development Consent Authority. I will be the fella’. And that is exactly what you are doing. You are taking away the same rights. I believe that is a disgrace, by a government that believes in open and transparent governance.
I support strategic development. I support industry – in the right place ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, that is a straight out lie. That is not right. I did not vote against it.
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask for that to be withdrawn. The record speaks for itself.
Mr WOOD: You made the statement, you prove it.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, I ask you to withdraw.
Mr WOOD: I withdraw that, but it is not right, and you know it.
Members interjecting.
Dr Burns: The member for Monsanto!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: At least with Monsanto, your government approved their trials in Katherine, and they produced a document to say what they did. Open - and your government approved it. So don’t go throwing around Monsanto. What a load of rubbish. What simplistic minds do you have over there?
I support development, but development in the right place. I support land clearing, but the right sort of land clearing. It is the quality of the land clearing not the quantity of land clearing. It is where you put your industry that is important, not just have industry anywhere. You people are silly enough to say: ‘Here is a piece of land at Berrimah, let us put housing there’. You forget the prison, you forget a big power line that goes through there, you forget the airport …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Nelson, would you please direct your comments to the Chair.
Honourable members, I remind you of the no interruptions Standing Order No 51, which is my favourite:
- No Member may converse aloud or make any noise or disturbance which in the opinion of the Speaker is designed to interrupt or has the effect of interrupting a Member speaking.
There have been a large number of interruptions. I would appreciate a fair bit of calmness. It is getting quite late. Member for Nelson, direct your comment through the Chair; you have a few minutes to go.
Mr WOOD: Well, there you are. It is our General Business Day, thank you very much. We only get one every 12 days.
Madam Speaker, they want to put houses on Berrimah Farm. The funny thing is, the minister will be the one who approves it. Oh, no worries - no DCA there. It is in the East Arm development port area. You are the minister for that area. So, go ahead. You make the decision; you put it in the approaches to the airport, near the prison, near the big power lines, near Hidden Valley, and near industry. Great decision!
However, there is an opportunity, if you have a look, to put some industry to the harbour, not in the middle – there. You have the power, the water, the transport, and you are close to the port. You do not have to take industry through the outskirts of Palmerston to get there. What will happen when you start transporting materials through the edge of Palmerston? You do not have to do that if you develop at Berrimah. You would not have to do that even if you developed in the Howard Peninsula. Every time I put forward those sorts of proposal, we get the simplistic argument: ‘You are against development’.
All I am saying is that you can have development and you can do it properly. You have said: ‘Oh, it is too hard at Glyde Point. Oh, it is too expensive. Oh, there are too many environmental issues. Oh, we have people who want to come to the middle of the harbour. Let us change the rules. Let us change it’. You have just taken a clause out of the Middle Arm Peninsula section of the Northern Territory Planning Scheme. ‘Let us change the rules again. We are not going to allow our Development Consent Authority, an independent consent authority, to make decisions about this. We will do it and we will not be interfered with’. That is what you are going to do.
Minister, I did not say you l would not have a public meeting. I am saying …
Ms Lawrie: Yes, you did, Gerry.
Mr WOOD: No, I am saying …
Ms Lawrie: Come on, you said it. You said you sent me a letter and I put it in the bin. That is what you said.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: Minister, you might say it but, in relation to the way the act is written, you have that choice. It is not required …
Ms Lawrie: I said it in parliament.
Mr WOOD: Yes, you are saying that you will have it, but I am saying - and that is my argument - that it is not a requirement for the minister to have a meeting; that is an option. That is what you have taken away by doing this. They can jump up and down all they like; they can blame CLP all they like. The reality is this motion is not so much about the environment, about industrial development - and that is all important - it is about the government reducing, taking away the rights of the people to have an independent authority to assess development applications in the Litchfield Shire. That is simply what it is about.
That, to me, is a backward step. By doing what they are doing, not only they are taking away those rights, they are telling the existing members of the planning authority: ‘We have no faith in you to do a proper job. Leave it to me. It is too important for you. You have no brains to work this out. We do not want you to handle this; this is top stuff. Top secret stuff this is - way up there’.
It is insulting to the members of the Development Consent Authority to take that power from them. They are a good Development Consent Authority. They look at serious issues. They look at the development of the Darwin city, and there are some big developments in Darwin city. Why could they not look at developments in an industrial site? It is not just about industry in the middle of the harbour, it is aquaculture. Is that such a strategic industry that it needs the minister to approve it? There are aquaculture farms there. What are we dealing with?
It is a sad day, not only for Territorians. I did not think I would see this from the Labor government; that they would actually do something like this. I was cranky at the CLP when they did this and I thought that this is the sort of thing that the ALP would back me on, to go crook at the CLP when they did it. Now, a few years down the track, you are doing exactly the same, and that is a terrible thing.
Madam Speaker, I hope that members in this House will look at what I am saying and say: ‘This is not the way we should be going’. I ask members to support this motion.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Division, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Division?
Mr WOOD: Division, yes.
Madam SPEAKER: Is it supported?
Mr MILLS: Yes.
The Assembly divided:
- Ayes 5 Noes 16
Ms Carney Ms Anderson
Mr Conlan Mr Bonson
Mrs Miller Mr Burke
Mr Mills Dr Burns
Mr Wood Mr Hampton
Mr Henderson
Mr Knight
Ms Lawrie
Ms Martin
Mr McAdam
Ms McCarthy
Mr Natt
Ms Sacilotto
Mr Stirling
Mr Vatskalis
Mr Warren
Motion negatived.
ELECTORAL AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 76)
Continued from 29 November 2006.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, on behalf of, and at the request of, the member for Braitling, I move that debate on the Electoral Amendment Bill 2006 (Serial 76) be postponed until the next General Business Day.
Motion agreed to.
ABORIGINAL LAND AMENDMENT
(INTER-TIDAL WATERS) BILL
(Serial 92)
(INTER-TIDAL WATERS) BILL
(Serial 92)
Continued from 2 May 2007.
Mr STIRLING (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I am intrigued that the couple of times I have been on my feet today on legal questions as Attorney-General, one in relation to the Bob Collins matter came to me as Attorney-General. Normally when matters come to you in your portfolio, it is the shadow spokesperson who is running with the issue. The Bob Collins matter was raised not by the shadow Attorney-General to the Attorney-General, but by the member for Blain. We had the births, deaths and marriages issue, a legal question in its essence, not proposed by the shadow Attorney-General, but by the member for Blain. Now we have the Aboriginal Land (Inter-Tidal Waters) Bill proposed not by the shadow Attorney-General for the Attorney-General to respond, but by the member for Blain.
One wonders just who is the shadow Attorney-General on the opposite of the Chamber, given that either they have changed jobs or there is a hell of a push for the member for Blain to get his hands on the role of shadow Attorney-General.
I would like to know the reason. Undoubtedly, if a minister in the government was speaking for someone or taking over someone else’s role, the opposition would be hell-bent to find out what was happening and why that was the case. Equally, I am interested as to why the shadow Attorney-General has been silent on three questions of a legal nature coming to me as Attorney-General today.
I would like to inform the House that a date has been announced for the High Court to hear the Blue Mud Bay appeal. It will be heard on 4 December this year. I would like very much to be in the High Court on that day to hear the arguments put. Of course, I would be leaving the legal arguments to counsel, although it is not uncommon at all for Attorneys-General in the Australian legal system to run those arguments in the High Court, but just watching would be interesting and challenging enough. I want the Northern Territory government to put its best case forward, and that would be the Solicitor-General and others of a very high calibre who are best placed to lead the arguments.
Our position in the matter has been consistent and clear. We are appealing to the High Court because we consider the Full Federal Court’s decision to be flawed and unworkable over the longer term. We did not agree with the Federal Court’s decision, notwithstanding that the member for Blain and members opposite have claimed from time to time, and still do, that this government supported the decision in the first place.
All parties to this recognised that the matter would, ultimately, go to the High Court no matter which argument was successful in the Full Federal Court because it is only the High Court of this country that can establish once and for all the certainty and the final legal clarity that everyone needs regarding the application of Northern Territory laws, such as the Fisheries Act, over the entire Territory. I can assure Territorians that the Territory government will prosecute its case very strongly indeed.
I also point out that the Territory government’s efforts in the interim period have always been focused on ensuring an absolute minimal disruption and inconvenience to recreational fishers and, at the same time, keeping the commercial industry strong and on a sound footing. Officers from the Justice department, Fisheries, the Chief Minister’s Department and police have worked together with the Seafood Council, AFANT, tour operators and land councils to get through this period as smoothly as possible. In the meantime, government has been working hard doing the work necessary to launch a strong High Court challenge.
That constructive and mature approach undertaken by this government stands in stark contrast to some individuals who have preferred to stamp their feet, declare interim licences offensive, and that, because they do not understand the issues, they will not comply with the Federal Court interpretation of a Commonwealth law.
I refer to the member for Blain in an interview with Julia Christensen on ABC radio on 1 August 2007. Julia Christensen said:
- But on day one, the Territory opposition says fishermen should be standing on principle and resisting pressure to get a permit. Terry Mills, the Deputy Opposition Leader has surfaced.
One wondered where he had been for some time, but on this day, on 1 August, he surfaced.
- Reporter: Why are you encouraging fishermen not to get a permit?
Mills: I’m encouraging fishermen to do as I am doing and think through this very carefully. I speak personally. I’ve weighed this issue up and I’m offended by many aspects of it.
It goes further into the interview:
Mills: … as for me, I will not be complying, I will not be accepting a permit. I find it offensive and I would like to see this whole course run.
- Mills: Well, I don’t like it, and I for one will not be accepting a permit. I am not applying for a permit.
The reporter eventually said:
- You sound very emotional about this … yet what we’re talking about is a piece of paper that is free and with no conditions attached basically. Is it worth getting so het up about it?
- Mr Mills: There’s a principle that is being reflected in this, and if it’s a piece of paper that is free, that is a mockery. If it is permit that is free, well what’s the point of it? I don’t understand this and I’m not going to just roll over and accept something that I do not understand, nor accept and find offensive … The Territory government supports a permit system, I do not support a permit system.
That is untrue. The Territory government did not support the decision. That is why we have gone to the Federal Court. We do not support the permit system. There was a time when AFANT wanted a permit system for recreational fishermen, and urged this government to put in place a permit system. We refused. We do not believe that we ought to have a permit system. It was a law of the Commonwealth, and an interpretation of the act by the full Federal Court, which made this ruling such. It is incumbent on every member of this Assembly to not only respect and obey the laws of the Northern Territory, but the Commonwealth of Australia. It is in your pledge in becoming a member of this Assembly that you will do so, and not encourage people to break the law, not stand there publicly and say that you are going to break the law because (1) you find it offensive, and (2) you do not understand it and you are not going to get a permit.
He does not understand it. He understands enough to bring a bill in here. He brings a bill in here on this issue, expecting us to support him, when he says he does not understand what it is all about. He said: ‘I do not understand it, I find it offensive’, and suddenly he sees the horizon, the fog lifts, he now understands it, and he understands it enough to bring in a bill.
He does not understand the decision. He finds it offensive. He will not accept it as if Federal Court decisions and Commonwealth laws have no effect on him. He is above the law, the member for Blain, he does not have to respect the law by the full Federal Court. We will not like it, none of us like it, but it is the law of the country.
I tell you what, I do not like Brough’s ridiculous alcohol laws that he has inflicted on this Northern Territory either, but I abide by them because it is a given law of the country, duly passed by the Commonwealth Parliament of Australia, and that man there, the member for Blain, grub though he may be, has the same responsibility as everyone else in the Northern Territory to abide by the law ...
Mr MILLS: Madam Speaker, just to be consistent …
Madam SPEAKER: Deputy Chief Minister, I ask you to withdraw, thank you.
Mr STIRLING: I withdraw it, Madam Speaker. He feels somehow that he is above the law; that he does not have to abide by the law as other Territorians. How does he feel about seat belts in motor vehicles? How does he feel about our drink driving laws? Does he find them offensive? Does he not want to abide by them? We might all have laws sometimes that we do not agree with, but as a parliamentarian, a member of this Legislative Assembly, you have a responsibility above all other citizens to respect and uphold the laws, not just of the Northern Territory but, indeed, of the Commonwealth of Australia. However, finding it offensive as he does, that he does not understand it, he feels somehow qualified to try to amend the full Federal Court decision through his own legislation.
This bill will not be supported. As the member for Blain knows, the government sought legal advice from the Solicitor-General as to whether the bill he was putting forward could possibly achieve its purported aim. The member for Blain knows the result of that advice, as he received, in full, a briefing from the Solicitor-General on the issue. I go back to my earlier statement. It was a decision made by the full Federal Court in interpreting a Commonwealth law, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. The Solicitor-General advised that the Aboriginal Land Amendment (Inter-Tidal Waters) Bill 2007 could achieve nothing more than is presently permitted by section 5(8) of the Aboriginal Land Act and does not overcome, importantly, the necessity for the grant of permission to fish in waters overlying Aboriginal land.
The bill seeks to amend the Territory Aboriginal Land Act to allow land councils or traditional Aboriginal owners to exempt persons - all persons, or a class of persons - from the requirement for a permit in relation to Aboriginal inter-tidal waters. However, the bill does not, and cannot, validly authorise fishing in Aboriginal inter-tidal waters. As is acknowledged in the second reading speech, the bill simply provides the option of removing the requirement for a permit. This, of course, would not, of itself, permit people to lawfully fish in the waters overlying Aboriginal land. In the absence of a licence conferred pursuant to section 19 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, traditional owners, even if able to and want to grant ad hoc permission, could equally refuse or withdraw permission granted whenever they saw fit. What sort of situation would you have? It is okay to go fishing there, and you get all set up and get down there, and then they say: ‘No, we have changed our minds, we do not want you to go’.
At least with the permit system you have some guarantee and surety of access that that permit will stand up, as opposed to perhaps thinking you have permission to go to some place but you have not spoken to the right traditional owner, or you have not received the right permission from the rightful people who speak for that country. The permit system, at least as it stands at the moment, gives that clarity.
In any case, why would traditional owners, the land trusts, or any of the land councils involved here, want to jeopardise what the traditional owners have been fighting for; that is, the right to control access to the inter-tidal zone on the grounds that they own it? That is the decision by the full Federal Court, so why would they jeopardise that legal position, having won in the full Federal Court and say: ‘Oh well, do not worry about it. That does not mean anything’. I am sure the full Federal Court would take a very dim view of a right won at law simply being ignored by the people by some form of blanket exemption envisaged by this bill.
What sort of chance would they have of continuing their fight to the High Court if, having won in the full Federal Court, they turned around and said: ‘Actually, we did not really mean that. We do not expect you to get a permit; it is open access as always and we were only joking, guys’. The High Court might take a pretty dim view of that by the time it got up there and say: ‘These people are not even serious about their rights because they have done nothing to put in place a system which respects them as traditional owners of these inter-tidal zones’. That respect is the recognition that you have to get a permit.
On the contrary, the land council, particularly the Northern Land Council, played a very cooperative role in getting an interim licensing system up, conferring a single licence to fish in all waters overlying Aboriginal land. Whether it is Anindilyakwa Land Council, the Tiwi Land Council, or Northern Land Council waters, the ability was to obtain a permit to cover each of those areas through the Northern Land Council upon conditions which include compliance with the provisions of the Fisheries Act, and which can only be terminated in certain defined events.
Importantly in that, I welcome the cooperation of the Northern Land Council in ensuring that if you got a permit, you were signing on to comply with the provisions of the Fisheries Act, notwithstanding that the effect of the full Federal Court decision was to wipe out the validity of the Northern Territory Fisheries Act within these waters. We did get an interim solution to let fishers keep fishing in every place they have before, whilst the process of a challenge was sorted out and an appeal lodged to challenge this decision in the High Court. We have a hearing date set for 4 December 2007 and a decision setting out our legal position is due, probably in the first part of next year, given that the High Court will take the best part of six months to bring down a decision.
Madam Speaker, it demonstrates further exactly how irrelevant this bill is. It simply would not get you there regarding the ability to fish anyway. The landowners would not be able to exercise any authority and any right that they have won in the full Federal Court. They would be left looking like lame sheep by the time it got to the High Court, trying to continue a fight that they had apparently turned their back on by not seeking to enshrine their rights by some sort of system.
This is a classic piece of absolutely pointless, political posturing by the member for Blain, including his interview with Julia Christensen on 1 August 2007. It is a disgrace and it reflects very poorly on the member for Blain, that he, as an elected member of this Assembly, can stand in public and say that he does not understand the legislation, he finds it offensive, and he will not comply with it. He ought to correct the record on that at some point, because, until he does, that is a shadow over him as an elected member of this parliament. It is a blight on his career as a person sworn to uphold the laws of the Northern Territory and the Commonwealth of Australia. It cannot sit easily with him to be out there calling on people, telling the world that he was going to refuse to comply with a duly passed law, and encouraging others to break the law alongside him. Not a good look for a member of parliament, and he would do well to put the record straight at the first opportunity.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, to correct the record, at the invitation of the Attorney-General, is something I would have to swallow my pride to do so. The nastiness that rises to the surface so easily is discomforting and has been referred to on a couple of occasions today. In a different context and a different frame of mind, the member for Nhulunbuy would perhaps understand …
Mr Stirling: Why are you doing this and not the shadow Attorney-General?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: Now, we will probably continue with the same …
Mr Stirling: No answer to that?
Mr MILLS: The Deputy Chief Minister, whose behaviour I find appalling at times, and there are times that – anyway, I …
Mr Stirling: It only encourages me, Terry.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: Anyway, it is as though the Attorney-General really sincerely seeks an explanation for the propositions that he put on the table. In fact, there is no such desire to seek an explanation as he is posturing around just seeking mischief. I have an interest and some responsibility for matters that pertain to people in my own electorate regarding particularly amateur fishermen but, more so, indigenous affairs. That is the reason I came to this issue. Not that it would help you to understand if you had a mind or a will to consider and to think of such things.
But no, you would prefer to sink into the gutter …
Mr Stirling: What about births, deaths and marriages? What about Bob Collins? Your electorate, was it, Bob Collins?
Madam SPEAKER: Order, Deputy Chief Minister!
Mr MILLS: … and you would try to dredge and find some sort of muck …
Mr Stirling: Bob Collins – it all happened in your electorate, did it? It all happened in your electorate as well. Well, that is amazing.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, Deputy Chief Minister!
Mr MILLS: … you have not spent any time considering the …
Madam SPEAKER: Deputy Chief Minister, cease interjecting.
Mr MILLS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr Stirling: I am seeking an explanation, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Deputy Chief Minister, cease interjecting. Member for Blain, please direct your comments through the Chair.
Mr MILLS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Rather than go to places at the urging of the Attorney-General, whom I am having difficulty respecting at this point, I will leave it aside.
The Attorney-General has paid little reference to the manner in which this bill was put before parliament. There was no reference to the second reading speech. It was brought in good faith. The purpose of it was to find a solution in a time of uncertainty. The source of the offence which was contained within that interview which, perhaps because of the strength of my feelings, may have masked it. However, that would not have bothered the Attorney-General; he would selectively quote from that just to try to mock the opponent on the other side.
Underneath this is an issue that caused some concern; that being the potential for this decision to create uncertainty, which it has, and, more importantly, where the source of offence lies which may be difficult for you to understand. I saw the potential in the time of uncertainty to increase racial division in the Northern Territory. It is from that place that I drew my deepest concern. I was concerned about the way that our laws are being administered that will create an environment where there is greater racial division. I saw the way that this was being managed. We needed a solution put on the table where we could possibly find at least a period of certainty between the time that this was put on the table and the time that we have now have, 4 December, a means to have some stability and certainty.
You have done yourself no credit whatsoever, Attorney-General, in not reflecting on the second reading speech, the mechanics that were described within the bill itself and the source of the offence, which was that I am very concerned about the way things are progressing in regards to these sorts of matters that will create potentially greater division within the Northern Territory. That is the primary source of my offence. Granted, my comments can be interpreted and, of course by those with a will to do so, will interpret it in ways that suit their own agenda and to run them in a mocking way and to exclude certain parts of that argument.
I maintain my position though I am not taking any concern whatsoever from the mock outrage by the member for Nhulunbuy. My position is still clear. I am still deeply concerned about the potential of these sorts of matters to create and enhance and further widen the racial divide in the Northern Territory. I did that mindful that some would interpret it incorrectly, but I am really encouraged that the wider community, even those amateur fishermen, are also really concerned about it. It is not as much about someone telling me I cannot fish somewhere; it is why am I now someone different? It may surprise the member for Nhulunbuy that I took the time to speak to traditional owners because I felt we needed to find a better way of solving these problems.
This is an action that has been ongoing for some time. I suspect that it was a surprise even for the Northern Land Council that it was given the nod. The ramifications of this are absolutely profound. I find it quite distressing that the member for Nhulunbuy, after all his time in parliament, seems to live with this jaundiced view about anything outside of his own jurisdiction, largely outside the Labor Party and anything that comes across from the Chamber. He would much prefer to vilify, mock and belittle, bully and use thuggish-type language just to win a point, and go monstering and stomping through his lobby and be a jolly good fellow amongst his mates. I do not find it impressive in the slightest. If you read the second reading speech, if you spent some time …
Mr Stirling: You brought it yourself with the stupidity of your comments.
Mr MILLS: But if it has come from you, it means nothing - absolutely nothing. I have even less respect now when you have spent no time whatsoever in weighing the arguments that were presented, the proposals that were put by way of this motion …
Mr Stirling: By the advice from the Solicitor-General saying it was a waste of time. That is not worth anything apparently.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: To go to that final point, there were matters that were raised within that briefing that I still remain of the view that there was a way through this and those discussions were had. But, of course, once you have the numbers, the strength, the power - might is right, and you can just blast your own way through these paths and away you go.
So, perhaps it is a happy day for you. Not a happy day for me, but nonetheless, I gave it a shot. I wanted to find a solution so at least we could have some stability during these times of uncertainty. Any advice that you have offered me, I will not be taking.
Motion negatived.
ADJOURNMENT
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Madam Speaker, the Parap Newsagency is a very popular and busy business, and it is open seven days a week. Deborah and Philip Kobelt are the hard-working owners and they provide essential items and services to the local community including paper deliveries, lotto tickets, an excellent range of stationery and cards, as well as the facility to pay bills and lodge classified advertisements.
Parap Newsagency also provides donations and sponsorship for local organisations and Parap Primary School. Philip is involved in the Parap Village Traders’ Association, which works to promote the shopping village and weekly markets. The staff at the newsagency are always extremely friendly and they have a very loyal customer base. I acknowledge Philip and Deborah, and their team, Emma, Harvey, Maryanna, Pauline, Tania and Whitney.
The Tournament of Minds always attracts a lot of interest in schools right around Australia. Competition has just finished in the Territory, and I am pleased to report that a team from Darwin High School won the Secondary Section in the Regional Tournament of Minds problem-solving competition. They are now gearing up to represent the Territory at the national final in Canberra on Saturday, 20 October 2007.
Tournament of Minds participants are required to solve demanding, open-ended challenges from one of the following disciplines: Language Literature; Maths Engineering; or Social Sciences. It is a great opportunity for students with a lateral bent to demonstrate their skills and talents in a challenging, dynamic and public way. Teams work together on a long-term challenge for six weeks without assistance from teachers, parents or peers. They rely on each other and are encouraged to explore possibilities and experiment with ideas as they try to construct the best possible solution to the problem they have been given. They then develop a creative and original way to communicate this solution to others, such as a short play or dramatic piece.
The Territory team will present their challenge solution to a panel of judges and an audience on Tournament Day. They have 10 minutes in which to present and must do so within a 3 m x 3 m performance area. The teams must also participate in a Spontaneous Challenge. This requires excellent group cooperation skills, rapid interchange of ideas, and the ability to think creatively and quickly. The Territory Team leaves for Canberra on 18 October, and they have funded the trip themselves through busking, car washing and raffles. I wish the team all the best for the final: Elise Moo, Megan Parry, Rebecca Keeley, Lewis Dostine, Stuart Fong, Kathleen Fong, Briana Harding, as well as trip facilitator, Cheryl Dimmock. I know they will do Darwin High, and the Territory, proud.
Sport is a big part of our Territory lifestyle, and recently Alice Springs’ athletes across all codes showed that high quality sport is alive and well in the Centre. In the local Netball competition, fierce rivals Federals and Memo Rovers fought out a great battle, with Federals coming out on top by just two goals 43 to 41. The lead changed continuously throughout the match, and I am told that the skills and pace exhibited by both teams was extremely high.
The soccer grand final between Federals and Verdi was another hard fought match. Federals were trying to stop Verdi from going back to back, and Verdi were trying to prevent Federals from getting both the minor and major premiership. It was a great game, with Federals eventually winning 1 to 0.
The Rugby League Grand Final was between Wests Dragons and Memo Bulls, with Wests aiming for their fourth premiership in a row. Brian Stirling, a former Territory representative, came back into the Dragons team to help them dominate the game and won very comfortably, 46 to 14.
I was fortunate to be able to attend two great games of AFL when I was last in Alice Springs. The Ngurratjuta Cup produced a great grand final, with all the skills and brilliance that we have come to expect from community football. The Yuendumu Magpies, backed by the member for Stuart, faced off against Papunya Eagles, backed by the member for Macdonnell, in front of more than 3000 spectators. Papunya came into the match chasing back-to-back premierships, but Yuendumu came away winners by 41 points. It was a fantastic game of footy, and I congratulate the Yuendumu Magpies on their victory.
The AFL CA grand final was held the day before between the Pioneer Eagles and Wests. In a close encounter, Wests won 10-14-74, to the Eagles 11-4-70. There were great skills on display by all the players in the fast paced, and very competitive, game. Unfortunately, as we all know now, a great game was marred by an unfortunate brawl following the final siren. There is no place for violence in sport, and I sincerely hope it will never be repeated.
In the basketball, Memo Magic scored a surprise 18 point victory over the Rockets. Memo’s Yanni Hatzimihail scored 32 points to help Memo to their 90 to 72 win. In the ladies basketball, the Federal Wallabies defeated Rockets 73 to 44, despite an 18 point haul by victorious Fed’s netball shooter, Tegan Pabst.
Congratulations to all the teams in these competitions who have played throughout the season.
Finally tonight, the Commonwealth Bank Small Business Champions Awards recognises outstanding achievement within the small business community throughout Australia. At the Northern Territory awards night held in Darwin recently, Alice Springs-based childcare chain Lil’Antz came out on top in its category of Children’s Services. Lil’Antz is well known and very well respected in their field. Starting out as provider of outside school hours care at various school sites around Alice Springs, they established their first childcare centre on Undoolya Road in 2004. They are now expanding with construction work well under way on another purpose-built childcare centre in Bath Street. This is great news for young families in Alice Springs, and for the town’s employers.
As the winner of the Small Business Champions Category, Lil’Antz, with 16 other Territory businesses, will go on to represent the Territory at the national awards in Sydney later this year. Congratulations to all the staff of Lil’Antz, especially Alison Haggett, for their outstanding commitment to childcare in Alice. I wish them the best of luck for the national awards next month.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to continue my report to the parliament from my study tour undertaken during some of September. I ask that anyone reading this Parliamentary Record refer to my comments made in the Chamber last night, and I continue from there as follows.
There are also parenting orders. Teachers, for instance, can apply for these, and a range of parenting programs are offered which assist parents. Teachers can apply for them as well, and police and schools can go to people’s homes and say, for instance, to parents that their kids are not going to school and that they, as well as people from other relevant agencies, can get their kids to school in a practical way. It is a very hands-on approach, and one which is delivering outcomes.
Family intervention was considered a priority area, as it seemed to explain some causes of antisocial behaviour. I have given a relatively brief explanation of this area, and the amount of material is significant. However, the most important lesson is that there are real possibilities here, and opportunities to learn from these policy initiatives.
I met with the Youth Justice Board. The Territory does not have an entity such as this and I was keen to assess whether we should. The board focuses on antisocial behaviour, and the orders courts are able to make. I wanted to learn how well those orders are working, how the young people to whom they apply respond, and what processes exist to monitor the success or otherwise of the orders. A range of issues affecting young offenders was also discussed, and I received a great deal of written material, some of which I will quote during this part of my report.
The Youth Justice Board is an independent, non-departmental government body established to advise on the operation of the Youth Justice System and National Standards. As it is independent, it can respond efficiently to issues, monitor performance, and identify effective practice. I was advised that the statutory aim of the Youth Justice System is the prevention of offending by children and young people.
There have been a range of youth justice reforms in the United Kingdom, and I was advised by the board that these have delivered results. The results include a reduction in reconviction rates; improvements in access to services; an increase in confidence in the courts and police; and an improvement in custodial regimes.
There are many aspects of the work that the board does of interest and potential application to the Territory. I would like to talk about one, namely, antisocial behaviour orders, or ASBOS, as they are known. These can be used for adults as well as young people. Although they are controversial and have received some criticism, the board considers them to be largely successful. In essence, they contain prohibition considered necessary to prevent a repetition of a person’s antisocial behaviour. The evidence, however, is that the use of ASBOS has made communities safer.
ASBOS are civil orders that protect the public from behaviour that causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. They can be imposed for a maximum period of two years. Importantly, the orders are not criminal, although a breach is, and they are not intended to punish an offender but rather to protect the wellbeing of the community. Individuals and organisations can apply for them, such as housing organisations, for instance. So the application is quite broad.
I have merely cited some of what the Respect Task Force and the Youth Justice Board do, and it is important to note that they work together and very closely. Given the problems that we have in the Territory and the desire of the community to see results - and they are entitled to - we should look at what other jurisdictions and countries are doing, and we should not stop looking for ways to address these issues.
Having been informed about its work, met with personnel and read the literature, it is clear that the Youth Justice Board is doing well. However, much more work would need to be done in order to make a final determination as to whether such a body could and should be established in the Territory Certainly there are possibilities, in particular, of looking at the antisocial behaviour orders and their broad application.
I met with a senior representative from Qantas to discuss opportunities for the Territory. The Territory government has supported promotional efforts in the United Kingdom, but I was keen to learn about their effectiveness and what more could be done. My meeting occurred in the week after the Tourism Minister was in Singapore doing his best, like me, to spruik for the Territory. The competitiveness of the international market became apparent and it is clear that Qantas is doing what they can for the Territory.
Unlike some members in this House, I am a strong supporter of Qantas and value very much the work they do in the community. Qantas has already granted a concession to the Territory in common rated flights from the UK through to Singapore and Darwin. This is to be welcomed. Passengers undertake both flights at no extra cost. There are a number of difficulties with increasing airline capacity. Jetstar is filling the need to a large extent and all jurisdictions are competing for the tourism market share. It is clear that the community does want Qantas to do even more for the Northern Territory. However, having had a lengthy discussion, I cannot inform the parliament that there is anything on the horizon. Naturally, that is disappointing.
In Singapore, I met with the Deputy High Commissioner and senior staff. They welcomed the opportunity to meet with me and we had a very good exchange of information, and they assisted me with a range of other visits. Unfortunately though, my meeting with Hunt Oil and Singapore Petroleum did not eventuate; however, I did manage to meet with British Gas. Most of its exploration activities are currently concentrated in the Atlantic region; however, it is pursuing a strategy of diversification. Officials from the federal Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources, as well as Geoscience Australia, met with management of British Gas during their visit to Singapore in July to promote offshore acreage release and, at that time, British Gas indicated an interest. While no decision has been made as to whether it would bid during the current offshore release round, they would like to increase their efforts in the next few years.
British Gas has, together with Singapore Petroleum and Hunt Oil, shown both an interest and capability in investing in Australian oil and gas exploration. British Gas was to invest and is currently considering a range of options but they will be some years into the future. British Gas will also consider the possibility of joint ventures with other operators. We discussed Glyde Point at our meeting. It was the view of those at the meeting that Glyde Point was desirable as a place for further industrialisation.
It is important to note that this was before the Chief Minister had made her announcement to rule it out of bounds as a site for future development. I feel certain that her announcement would have raised eyebrows in many companies looking to the future, though obviously, not all companies. The CLP identified Glyde Point as a site for major gas-based industry but this government’s decision to rule it out is, we believe, a short-sighted decision.
British Gas, nevertheless, sees the expansion of LNG as a great opportunity. When Labor came to office, the foundations had already been put in place. The Territory government must do all that it can to ensure further development, and that means having the infrastructure in place, as well as a commitment that goes beyond the issuing of media releases.
I now turn to my visit to the Budget Terminal in Singapore. The Budget Terminal, which is relatively new, is run by the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore. I was provided with an extensive tour of this impressive terminal, and met with the Assistant Director of the authority. It is a no-frills terminal: no air bridges, no lounges and minimal handling. Passengers are assembled in a large area and that is where they wait.
This is a marketing opportunity for a number of reasons. We discussed the possibility of staging Territory-themed events and interactive displays to entertain and inform passengers and visitors to the Budget Terminal. There are obvious opportunities for the Territory to pursue and it is important that we do so. Because it is a relatively new terminal, the time is right for the Territory to get its foot in the door. In fact, I was advised that I was the first politician from Australia to meet with them to discuss possibilities.
Currently two airlines, Tiger Airways and Cebu Pacific, use the terminal, but it is hoped that more will come, and I am sure they will. Importantly, the terminal has about 130 000 passengers in it per month. It is those passengers the Territory can target. It is designed for a capacity of 2.7 million passengers per year, and it has scope for further expansion. Tiger Airways operates between Singapore and Darwin, Perth and Melbourne and has been extremely active in our region and in this country. We have heard government ministers talking about Tiger Airways with great enthusiasm. There is now an opportunity to further promote the Territory in conjunction with Tiger Airways, and is an opportunity too good to miss. Given that Tiger Airways has decided to make Melbourne its hub, we have to make the most of what is left for the Territory.
I propose that themed events such as promotion of indigenous culture, such as live performances, displays of bush tucker, as well as static displays and so on, could exist in the terminal and there is room for it. They were keen to explore this idea and, indeed, had in the past given some consideration to similar concepts. I undertook to write to the Tourism Minister and to provide a copy to Ms Goh, with whom I met. I said that I would encourage him to request his office or Tourism NT to put a proposal together for the terminal representatives, and Ms Goh said that she would facilitate a meeting with Tiger Airways and, possibly, Cebu Pacific.
We all know what a great job Tourism NT does for the Territory. Over the years, we have seen great marketing ideas produced, and it was not all that long ago when the Tourism Minister talked about getting some promotional material on the side of London cabs. We have also heard Tourism ministers talk about static displays at airports, in lifts and in key marketing areas. I know those at Tourism NT would agree that in tourism, creative marketing is what it is all about, and this is a market worth pursuing. I formally invite the minister to pick up this idea and run with it. I will, however, be getting a letter to him by the end of the week.
I also met with the Singapore National Parks Board to discuss the Greening of Singapore initiative. This has direct application to Darwin because it represents what is considered to be best practice of how urban greening can be harnessed to improve the quality of the environment and create an aesthetically pleasing garden city.
I also met with representatives of the Singapore Centre for Urban Greening and Ecology, which is a joint initiative of the National Parks Board and the Singapore Workforce Development Agency. There has been much talk from government in recent times about greening Darwin and establishing a ribbon of green around the city. More must be done than simply announcing an intention, however. While I know that the Chief Minister met with a representative from the board earlier and, according to a report to parliament, was given a special presentation, I spent most of the day with senior members of the board and others and obtained a thorough understanding of the issues. I obtained a detailed understanding of what they achieved, why they did it, how they did it, and how it has application to Darwin.
Singapore’s former Prime Minister started the Greening of Singapore in about 1967. He wanted Singapore to be different and beautified. The attention to detail of Singapore’s greening was significant and impressive and there have been, and continue to be, a number of benefits. The streetscaping is obvious to anyone who looks around. In some areas there are tunnels of trees. This reduces temperature; they estimate between five and nine degrees. There are also social benefits of living in a city where there are trees everywhere. Singapore is now looking to move from being a garden city to a city in a garden. It is widely acknowledged that Singapore represents best practice of how urban greening can improve a city’s aesthetic appearance that enhances its economic activity and outcomes. It came about to meet the demands of rapid urbanisation and was led from the top.
The Garden City Program was established and it grew from there and it continues. I was taken to a number of sites and the benefits are simply amazing. There is a practical and policy-led framework within which the greening continues. The Streetscape Greening Master Plan is a work in progress and it is extensive. One project within the plan is the greening of rooftops of apartment blocks. Tests have shown that, among the environmental benefits, temperatures of buildings can be reduced and, accordingly, active greening of rooftops is to be encouraged. They are researching more, and in particular what types of plants will best suit this specific type of planting. There is much that can be learned that has direct application to Darwin from their research.
Mr Deputy Speaker, as I have about 30 seconds left I will stop there for tonight and continue my report during the sittings.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Deputy Speaker, this evening I pay tribute to a remarkable and wonderful Territory woman who, sadly, recently passed away. I refer to Kathryn Anne Flynn. Her funeral was held at St Mary’s Cathedral last Saturday morning. My deepest condolences to her husband, John, and her children. I had hoped to attend the funeral. I had made babysitting arrangements but, unfortunately, I ended up spending the morning at Royal Darwin Hospital with one of my children.
I want to recognise the significant contribution that Kathryn made to the Territory. I propose to do so by reading into the adjournment debate the eulogy that was provided to the large gathering at the cathedral by the former Chief Magistrate, Hugh Bradley:
- Welcome to you all and thank you for your support for the family of Kathryn Anne Flynn. I am sure they greatly appreciate that support, not just the people of Darwin but the family from Adelaide and Brisbane, including Gerry, Eileen, Anne Marie, Mary, Rosalie and Christine. I also acknowledge special long-term friends, Goff Letts and Michael Ward, and others who have travelled far to be here with them. Please forgive me if I have failed to mention others who have gone to great lengths to be here. I know you have all put yourselves out to show your respect and support.
You might well ask what that sound is - it is of a true thoroughbred - a mare with a heart as big as Phar Lap, a woman of extraordinary strength and resilience - she had to be, for she married John and as you will learn, raised five children and achieved a great deal during a full life to the very end. Incidentally, Phar Lap was a feature of her life as it was the name of her cat and her e-mail address.
How is one to describe Kathryn? Perhaps I can just list a few of the adjectives that were used by family yesterday - reliable, elegant, serene; a woman with an inner glow, an aura and a sense of style. A woman who was a proud feminist who showed others that that does not prevent you doting on your husband and children, one who was thoughtful always of others and particularly her children.
Notwithstanding that the family in Adelaide were living so far away they feel intimately connected to Kathryn because of these qualities and they looked forward to her visits in January each year.
I propose to try to fill some of the gaps which many of us may have on this extraordinary life for she was a very quiet and unassuming person who never spoke of her achievements.
Kathryn was born on 19 January, 1941 at Port Lincoln. She was number seven of eight children born to Maurice and Mary Henderson. During her early years, she spent some time in hospital like her brother as it was suspected she had polio but she overcame this obstacle.
After the war the family moved to Adelaide and Maurice became a successful businessman, developing what was then the well known hotel, The Castle. Kathryn completed her secondary education at the Cabra Dominican Convent where, in her final year, she was head prefect - little did she know the skills thus developed would serve her well during her years of marriage to John.
After school, Kathryn became a student nurse at Royal Adelaide Hospital, graduated as a registered nurse and then gained her midwifery certificate at St Margaret’s Hospital in Sydney. Later in life she was to gain her Bachelor of Nursing from the University of the Northern Territory. She went on to further postgraduate studies also with the NTU.
During the years of nursing training, Kathryn started an interest which was to endure for the rest of her life. This was her training as a pilot. This achieved such an importance to her that she, with her sister Christine, qualified in 1968 as the first female commercial pilots to graduate from Cessnock Training College. Fred Fairthorn, a successful Victorian businessman, employed her to fly him around the country.
- Enter Goff Letts and the Northern Territory, and Kathryn found herself in Nhulunbuy where, in 1972 - you guessed it - she came across a certain John Flynn, a man who had, thus far, avoided matrimony.
Marriage followed on 19 May 1973 – more about that later – and she and John have successfully raised five children, and been very involved in the life of two grandchildren. The children we know as little Kathryn, Joe, Daniel, Kevin and Jack. These are young people of whom anyone would be proud. The grandchildren are Connor, 13, and Juliet, 6. They, with Kevin’s wife, Tannith, formed the core of Kathryn’s family in Darwin. Kathryn was devoted to these children. She gave them room to grow, and loved them dearly.
Apart from successful careers as a nurse, midwife, pilot, and mother, Kathryn has managed to fit an extraordinary amount of living and community service into the years following her marriage. In Gove, she became President of the Women’s Electoral Lobby; President of the Catholic Women’s League; President of the Northern Territory Women’s Nursing Mothers Association - she took this role so seriously, I am told, that she has been known to fly a plane and, at the same time breastfeed her child - and, of course, head prefect of the Flynn household.
After John’s employment brought the family back to Darwin, Kathryn continued to undertake many extramarital activities. She became President of the NT Branch of the Australian Women’s Pilot Association - remember her car number plate, AWPA; inaugural member of the Women’s Advisory Council; Australian President of ‘the 99s’, an international women’s pilots association; 10 years involvement, including President of the Zonta Club; the construction of the Compass Rose on the runway at Darwin Airport, a place where pilots traditionally swung their compass prior to flights; worked with the Arthritis Association and acted as a volunteer hydrotherapist; worked with Sue Sayers in the development of a groundbreaking study of Aboriginal children - Sue tells the story of flying to remote places in the Territory and, from time to time, having to swing the propeller manually to start the engine; and also became a visitor for female inmates at the Darwin gaol.
There are probably many of you who know of other services she has performed for the community, both down south and during her years in the Territory. I emphasise that throughout all of her life she has been a committed Catholic, and worked with and for the church.
Kathryn also had a real interest in life, sport, and games. She undertook parachute training and became, in 1962, the first woman ever to compete in a national championship, and then to represent Australia in international competition in the United States. I am informed that her competitive career in this field was cut short by a car accident. For her work in this field, and as a pilot, she has been recognised in the Longreach Hall of Fame, the National Pioneer Women’s Hall of Fame in Alice Springs, and was featured in an exhibit of 50 famous women pilots which showed in the Powerhouse Museum in Sydney and then toured Australia.
- She fished, camped, gardened, and played tennis, and those members of the Wednesday Whackers who are here will recall her considerable skill on the court. When she and John took up windsurfing later in life, it was apparently clear to the instructor that she would make the grade, but that John was a worry. Kathryn was an accomplished pianist and sang, according to John, like a nightingale.
Kathryn also spoke French, and was an active member of the Alliance Francaise. John tells me it was this association which resulted in him being appointed the Honorary Counsel of France. She loved a bet, was a footy tipping winner, and an avid Scrabble player. Rumour has it she let John win from time to time.
Flying was, however, her primary love after her family, of course, and she continued to fly throughout her life and ferried many famous, and not so famous, over the Territory: Sam Calder, Goff Letts, Jon Isaacs, Jock Nelson, and John Waters come to mind. There was a time when Frank Crean, the then federal Deputy Opposition Leader, came up north. He arrived in the splendour of the government jet and then took off with Jock Nelson in a small single seater, piloted by Kathryn. She handed over her child, little Kathryn, to the boys, that is, Frank and Jock, and then got on with the business of flying them from Gove to Groote Eylandt.
- She had an enviable record of safety and reliability which, according to John, was quite unlike her handling of motorcars where he claims she was responsible for cooking three motors. I recall my own admiration of her skills when, with John, and Trevor and Ruth Morling, we undertook a trip to Smith Point for fishing. It took two to three trips to get all the gear in, and on the last journey she arrived after sunset. John and I had car lights, torches and whatever out to try to light the way. Kathryn arrived in the dark, on the spot, and executed a perfect landing in conditions that were less than ideal or legal.
It was during her flying career that her tendency for relaxed attitude to time became apparent. Instead of giving an ETA as a normal pilot would do, it is said that Kathryn gave an HRT, Henderson Rubber Time.
I have spoken of her achievements and we all know her strength of character. Kathryn was strong minded when she determined on a course and little, let alone hard work, would divert her. She championed Aboriginal people, and would strongly argue their case. She attended the Garma Festival at Nhulunbuy every year and despite her illness, wanted to do so this year, but regrettably, it was not possible. Her stoic acceptance and determination to live, despite her illness, was remarkable to observe.
To the last, she supported her club, Port Adelaide and travelled to Melbourne with John to see her team play. In my view, this was a display of extraordinary courage, given her condition. Even in a small way, she showed that she would stay the course.
In our joint shack at Wagait, we had an infestation of bindi eyes and she set about weeding them from an area of about an acre, a considerable task. She undertook the care of the sand dunes and the Casuarina pines she planted there will serve as a permanent reminder of her dedication.
I have also suggested that she has endured, tolerated says John, his different way of looking at things. It was, I am told, only months after they met before John realised he was a ‘gonna’, and instead of purchasing his sports car, went out with the assistance of his father, to purchase a ring while they were away in London on a boys’ trip. On his return, and having been picked up in a taxi by Kathryn, John decided this was the moment for romance. He mumbled, pulled the ring from his pocket and said: ‘Here, try this for size’. It seems the ring fitted and since she did not give it back, he assumed they were engaged. She got her own back, however, when she arranged for John to wear a green velvet suit on the wedding day. This apparently was the only colour his mother had told him to never wear. Can any of you imagine John in green velvet? Of course, she also gave John a dose of HRT.
I have been asked by John to say a few words of thanks and I propose to simply read out his words:
- I will forever be grateful to all religious and medical people and all those, including family and relatives, who visited and comforted Kathryn. I am overwhelmed by the support I have received since her death and I would particularly like to thank Ros and George for hosting the event after the Requiem Mass. Kathryn’s great love for me and generosity to all, was unwavering. She was a gem that did not need polishing.
- I am not, as John understands, strongly religious, but I am aware of some of the teachings of Christ and in particular, a part of the Sermon on the Mount where the Lord said: ‘Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth’. A modern writer has attempted to define what Christ meant by those words. The writer said:
- Meek means gentle, humble or considerate. It is the opposite of arrogance and violence. Those who are willing to share and sacrifice on behalf of others are meek. Meekness does not mean weakness. It does not mean one must cower or retreat from principles. It does not involve the surrender of one’s rights. Meek men and women of the Bible showed firm resolve, courage and strength.
A pretty good description of Kathryn.
- There you have her. Kathryn Anne Flynn, a thoroughbred who has stayed the course under all circumstances.
That was the eulogy read by Hugh Bradley at the Mass to remember Kathryn Anne Flynn and to give her our community’s last respects.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, she was a woman whom I found to be a great inspiration. She was a woman who was very strong and, to me, a fantastic and outstanding Territorian. She set a standard that I aspired to in her absolute dedication to the community, particularly in her dedication to all Territorians and the pursuit of the rights of Aboriginal people, of women, and her absolute courage in her illness, was truly amazing.
She had such incredible dignity. I feel very privileged to have known Kathryn in the last few years that I have known her. As I said, I am very sorry to have missed her funeral because my son was ill. I hear reports from my mother that there were many people there, giving their respects to Kathryn and their love and support to the family, John and the children, and the grandchildren.
I thank John Hardy of Hardy Aviation for organising, quite appropriately, a fly over in respect of this late, great Territory aviator. May she rest in peace.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016