2005-08-17
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 247 petitioners praying that the majority of detached family home lots in the suburb of Lyons will be 800 m or more. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders. Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
Madam SPEAKER: Are there any further petitions?
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 325 petitioners praying for more green open space in the Darwin CBD for new residents and the Darwin public. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it confirms with the requirements of standing orders. Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read.
Mr STIRLING (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Madam Speaker, the 2005 Darwin Cup Carnival concluded on Monday, 1 August, with the running of the Carlton Draught Darwin Cup. Once again, the Darwin Cup Carnival proved itself to be one of the major economic catalysts on the Northern Territory calendar, and a great social event.
More than 45 000 people passed through the gates at Fannie Bay Racecourse over the eight days. TAB and bookmaker turnover exceeded $5m. Darwin Turf Club paid out over $1.1m in prize money, with the cup race itself boasting prize money of $150 000.
The carnival this year attracted several top interstate jockeys including Scott Lecky from South Australia who had just won the South Australian Apprentice Premiership. He won that championship on the last race of the racing calendar year in South Australia, and both jockeys who were level in the premiership finished first and second in that race, so it was a brilliant win for Scott to pick up that apprentice premiership. He started his career in Darwin under the tutelage of local trainer, Stephen Brown, now based at Macau. Stephen returned to Darwin with his family for Darwin Cup weekend and had a great time.
Many national celebrities take the opportunity to come to Darwin to visit at this time of year. I was most interested to see well-known - some would say controversial - bookmaker Robbie Waterhouse standing at Fannie Bay.
As always, accommodation houses have been at maximum capacity and restaurants fully booked. An estimated $50m has been injected into the local economy by locals and the many interstate visitors.
This year, full cup day television coverage was undertaken by ThoroughVisioN. The Darwin Turf Club has entered into an agreement with ThoroughVisioN to secure the televising of Darwin racing. It is a coup for the club, and will continue to assist with the national promotion of the Territory and its racing industry.
The club also extended its sponsorship agreement with Fosters Australia for a further three years, which is great news. I take this opportunity to acknowledge the sponsors of the carnival because without them, it simply would not be the success that it is. The major sponsors are Fosters Australia, Schweppes, SKYCITY, and SportingBet. There are smaller, but very important, sponsors who all play extremely important roles.
The government has negotiated a funding agreement that provides a sound financial footing to allow the industry to grow and prosper in the forthcoming years, and the government is a proud supporter of the Northern Territory racing industry.
I extend congratulations to David Bates, the local trainer of Lanson, winner of the cup, plus all the other trainers and owners involved in the carnival. In closing, I congratulate Charles Burkett, the Darwin Turf Club Committee Chairman, Des Friedrich, the Chief Executive, the committee and all staff of the Darwin Turf Club who have been involved in what has been one of the most successful carnivals to date.
Madam Speaker, it is an outstanding Territory event that keeps getting better.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I agree with minister’s comments. The carnival, for me and many Territorians, is the premier event on the calendar, one I look forward to immensely.
I suspect that the bookmakers did not have a particularly good day on cup day because most of the favourites came in, including Lanson. I am very pleased to report that for the second time in my life, I backed a winner in the cup. There was a very long line of folks waiting to collect.
In reflecting on the positive impact that racing, and particularly that event, has on the Top End economy, we also reflect upon other significant racing events that occur up and down the track. It would be beneficial if we are able to strengthen the racing industry so that more Territorians frequent the course at times other than Cup Day. Whilst it is a great event that everyone enjoys immensely, it would be useful to find ways of encouraging the racing industry to strengthen its profile and broaden its appeal so that more people frequent courses at times other than Cup Day.
Further, I recognise the work of sponsors who make the day possible and the opposition adds its words of appreciation.
I note also the career opportunities that are available through the racing industry. I hope the minister is aware of the opportunities in the racing industry and provides adequate support to apprentices and those who care for horses, in training and support behind the scenes.
Mr STIRLING (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Madam Speaker, I thank the opposition spokesman on racing for his supportive comments. In relation to training, it is an opportunity for us. It is a small industry, however, in terms of apprentice jockeys and whether we might be able to have a group training approach to it, I am not sure. We have done a fair bit of work in consultation with the industry on how we might strengthen that.
In terms of racing across the Territory, sure, the economic benefit is one thing, but it is a great part of the social fabric of the Territory. I was very disappointed a few years ago when the Timber Creek Cup fell off the calendar, and there were reasons for that. I have not given up on resurrecting that, and there are other country clubs throughout the Territory which used to race annual events. I keep them on the horizon in terms of opportunities to bring some of those events back.
Generally, the racing industry is in pretty good shape. We had a bit of a kerfuffle with Tennant Creek this year running their cup immediately after the Darwin Cup. It was not ideal timing, and the principal club ought to look at that for the future.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Senior Territorians): Madam Speaker, we are in the middle of another successful Seniors’ Month. This is part of my new portfolio responsibility as Minister for Senior Territorians, and it gives me particular pleasure. I have previously spoken in the House about the help and assistance I have been given by my parents and other senior members of the community who have taken the time to provide guidance and share their wisdom and memories with me. Seniors’ Month in August each year is a time when we as a community celebrate and reflect on the wonderful contributions older people have made to the Northern Territory and to Australian society.
Seniors have always been a minority group in the Northern Territory and, while the numbers of older people will grow in the coming years, our population is the youngest in Australia and this is going to continue for the foreseeable future so we especially need to treasure and celebrate the seniors of the Northern Territory.
Seniors provide us with a sense of our history. They are the guardians of our culture. It is they who pass important values and learning of their experiences on to future generations. This means that we, as a society, do not forget the important lessons of the past.
Seniors’ Month in the Northern Territory has grown from a smaller celebration that used to happen over a week to a month-long celebration of events, some organised by seniors for seniors, others supported by grants from the Office of Senior Territorians, some in town, some in the bush, a diversity of events, parties and activities held by individuals, community groups and organisations to recognise the contribution of seniors.
August is Seniors’ Month in the Northern Territory. This year, there are over 90 events on the calendar in all parts of the Territory celebrating the achievements of older people and, in particular, events that keep older people active and connected.
Successful grant applicants are chosen by a panel comprising representatives of community and interest groups, and details of events are published in all local newspapers or on the Seniors web site.
There is a suite of activities for seniors that the government supports, including practical ways to lead independent, active and healthy lives in the community. To assist older people to age well in their own homes, the government has developed a seniors’ safety program, Stay Safe. The Stay Safe program has a web site with a range of information on how to make homes safer, how seniors can feel more secure and tips on staying healthy.
Visitors to the Stay Safe web site who take a few minutes to answer yes or no to questions on the three check lists are able to see how safe their circumstances are, and how to plan for any changes necessary to make themselves more safe and secure. Although seniors are a group of people who are rapidly expanding their use of information and technology, the Stay Safe program is currently being adapted for print so it will be available for people without access to computers.
Recent changes to the Pensioner Concession Scheme are another way to assist seniors to stay connected with the community. The six-month waiting period for concessions has been abolished, so as soon as pensioners are eligible for the scheme, they can benefit immediately. More importantly, the travel component now allows card holders to use their own travel entitlement to bring family or friends from interstate or even overseas to visit them.
On 4 August, I had pleasure in launching the 2005 edition of the Senior Card General Business Directory. The Senior Card is a Territory success story. In 1999, when it was first introduced to the Territory, 200 businesses were registered. Today, more than 500 businesses support the Senior Card holders by offering discounts on goods and services. The success of the Senior Card is reliant on the private sector, and I thank the many Territory businesses which proudly support our older Territorians. TIO continues to provide generous sponsorship to the Senior Card scheme and provides a contribution of $50 towards annual private motor vehicle third party insurance for Senior Card holders.
Two business directories are produced each year so that everyone has a ready source of information about the benefits available from local businesses - from home maintenance, pet care, professional services to travel, accommodation and general retail. The complementary volume, Tourism and Leisure Business Directory, was circulated in May.
A small group of volunteers have been involved with the huge task of organising the mail-out of the directory. The assistance provided by this dedicated group of seniors will ensure that every Northern Territory Senior Card holder and participating business will receive a copy.
Seniors’ Month celebrates the very people who provide the solid base of experience and wisdom that any balanced community needs. I congratulate all those involved in making this month such a great success, and wish all seniors in the Territory a wonderful celebration.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her report. Seniors need to be shown a great deal of respect, and I want to let you all know that I am one of them. Anyone of my age qualifies as a senior …
Members interjecting.
Mrs MILLER: I am proud to say that I am.
Mr Kiely: With honours!
Mrs Miller: I have a lot to do with - I do not want any smart comments. I have much to do with the seniors in Katherine, where there is a very strong group of seniors which gathers every Wednesday. We would like to see them in a permanent place of their own. At the moment, they meet in the corner of the YMCA and, sometimes, they arrive at that room to find that it has been double-booked or someone else has it so they tend to meet in a little corner.
I have a lot of time and respect for the amount of hard work and volunteer work that seniors do. I particularly refer to Katherine because they do a lot of work and ask for very little.
Seniors tend not to want to make a loud noise about anything. One of the seniors who does make a lot of noise - and he does it in jest, of course - is the person I spoke about in the adjournment debate last night: Bob Mackie.
The Katherine Mayor hosted a morning tea to begin Seniors’ Week this year. Katherine Town Council has gone a bit mean with their money, but they decided that one of the things that was really important for them to do this year was to make sure that they recognise the seniors in Katherine.
I congratulate the minister for her report, and I welcome and applaud all seniors in the Northern Territory.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, being the most senior member of this parliament and definitely a senior, I have to express a bit of interest in this event.
I am concerned, though, about the way funding for these grants occurred this year. As the minister knows, there were a huge number of applications, but the panel was, again, Darwin-based. Of the three members, there was no representation out of Darwin. The basis of the criteria was that it was to be an active event.
Our Senior Citizens Club, which we should promoting and encouraging, submitted an application to have a bus trip to Ooraminna for lunch and back again, and I consider that a justifiable application. Unfortunately, they missed out and there was a lot of concern voiced in Alice Springs at the way the funding was allocated.
The Seniors’ Dinner Dance also was not funded, but thanks to Lions and me, we were still able to supplement the cost and run it.
The minister said there are 90 events. There is almost an assumption that the minister is responsible for funding all those 90 events, but that is not so.
Minister, in your reply, could you tell us how many of these events were funded by government? I think you will find there were not many. Perhaps you could also tell us how many were funded in Alice Springs because that is something in which people in Alice Springs are interested.
It seems to me the Berrimah Line is alive and well because of the way these applications were treated. One of the members who was on the panel suggested that next year, there might be more consultation with people in regions to find out where their priorities lie.
Having said that, Seniors’ Month is a great time to celebrate being a senior. It is good that the government puts emphasis on that. I notice in my electorate there are more and more seniors.
I ask the minister to seriously consider the issue of a village for self-funded retirees because we want to keep them in the Territory and not let them go away.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Senior Territorians): Madam Speaker, I thank the members for Katherine and Braitling for their comments on this report.
There is a whole raft of issues that the member for Braitling raised. I do not have time in my reply to address them all, but funding for Seniors’ Month is done by the Office of Senior Territorians. The panel includes bodies like COTA and representatives from the Seniors Advisory Council.
When I talk about the 90 events, it is fantastic that we are building every year in terms of the number of events. I did say that some of them are funded by government; many of them are events done by seniors for seniors. I thanked the private sector and, for many of these events, the private sector needs to be applauded because that sector’s involvement has grown every year.
I am not saying that government funds them all, but our funding complements what is happening out there, which is building and making it bigger. I have noted the issues that you raised, member for Braitling, and will see what we can work on.
Mr VATSKALIS (Multicultural Affairs): Madam Speaker, the Northern Territory government is committed to fostering an environment in which people from different communities are able to forge a common identity as Territorians. Our government is equally committed to valuing the Territory’s rich diversity and the contributions of individuals from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds.
Examples of support provided to our multicultural communities include funding under the Multicultural Affairs Sponsorship Program, the Linguistic Awards, and the Charles See Kee Awards.
For 2005-06, funding of $737 000 has been made available under the Multicultural Affairs Sponsorship Program, which is an increase from $712 000 in 2004-05. I recently announced the decision of round one of this program. The demand for grants was higher than ever, with 45 applications being received, and a total of 30 grants approved totalling $312 000.
The approved grants range from funding for festivals such as the Alice Springs Mabuhay Multicultural Association’s Barrio Fiesta to innovative one-off projects such as the African- Australia Friendship Association’s initiative to establish a skill training project for women within the African community.
Three applications that would ordinarily be considered in round two of the Multicultural Affairs Sponsorship Program were accepted in round one. This was to allow the applicants, in the case of the Glenti and India at Mindil, a greater period of time in which to plan such large scale events with a degree of certainty about Northern Territory government funding assistance, and in the case of the Lion Dance Group application, to alleviate previous problems that have occurred with the timing of Chinese New Year and the timing of the announcement of round two decisions.
In line with the government’s commitment as set out in our multicultural policy, Building on the Territory’s Diversity, significant operational funding has been provided to both the Multicultural Council of the Northern Territory and the Multicultural Community Services of Central Australia.
Members may also be aware that I recently announced the recipients of the 2004-05 Charles See Kee Awards. This is the second year of these awards. In March this year, they were re-named in recognition of the great work Charles See Kee did in the Northern Territory in support of multiculturalism.
The main aim of these awards is to recognise outstanding Territorians and organisations that give their time to help the development of multiculturalism in the Northern Territory. Selection of recipients for the award is based on criteria and is made by an independent panel. This year, the panel consisted of Michelle Castagna, Beryl Mulder, Adam Lowe and Maria Koukouvas. I would like to record my appreciation for the efforts of these individuals and for the time they gave to consider these awards.
The recipients of the Charles See Kee Awards were:
Miss Alice Chang in the category of an individual under 25 years old. Alice has been actively involved
in an array of multicultural events and sits on many committees, including the Executive Council for the
Multicultural Council of the Northern Territory, the Australian Medical Association, the Chief Minister’s
Round Table and the Medical Consumers Group;
Association of the Northern Territory. John is to be commended for his ongoing commitment to multiculturalism;
Association of the Northern Territory. This fabulous concert provides an opportunity for youth and the broader
community to participate and view multiculturalism in action.
On behalf of the Northern Territory government, I congratulate all recipients of the awards as well as those who were nominated but not successful on this occasion for their continued effort in promoting multiculturalism in the Northern Territory.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report on the activities that this government has undertaken with multiculturalism in the Northern Territory.
We all appreciate that the many ethnic groups in the Northern Territory deserve the support that they receive from governments of both persuasions. They have made a significant contribution to our community.
What I find sadly missing from the minister’s report is the issue about Islam and the attack that people of Islamic religion have come under during these troubled times in the world. That is something that I would have preferred the Minister for Multicultural Affairs to be outspoken about; state that we support the people in the Northern Territory, people of all religions, and maintain that they should be living in our community in safety and be very welcome.
The way Islam is being attacked in Australia at the moment is unfortunate because people of Islamic religion who live in the Northern Territory have contributed so much to our community and have been positive citizens.
Minister, I would have preferred you to talk about Understanding Islam, an event conducted on 11 August, between 10 am and 12 pm, to explain to all of us in the Territory what Islam is about. The Territory government should be picking up on the posters that the Islamic Association have produced that have been on display out here in the foyer explaining the parallels between Islam and Christianity, showing people that there is great unity in our beliefs. That way, we will promote much more positive attitudes between one another. That is more important, although I agree that it is important to continue our support for the other ethnic communities.
Mr VATSKALIS (Multicultural Affairs): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his comments, despite the fact that he always finds something negative to say. It does not matter whether it is a good story; he will be negative.
The Territory has been a bright example for the rest of Australia. Irrespective of what has happened around the world, from 11 September to date, we have never had an incident of an attack against a mosque. Rather, on many occasions, members of this Assembly have been welcomed in mosques, and have taken part in celebrations in mosques. I have visited the mosques in Darwin and in Alice Springs. We have provided monetary and moral assistance to the Islamic community and the mosques.
I advise the House that in the coming few days, I am having a meeting with the Islamic community in my office to discuss how we can further promote the peaceful co-existence between all religions here in the Northern Territory. The Territory is a multicultural and tolerant society and will continue to remain so.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that:
(1) a committee to be known as the Select Committee on Substance Abuse in the Community be appointed
in accordance with the terms of reference circulated to members;
government members, two members of the opposition and one Independent member, nominated to
the Speaker; and
(3) the following members, unless otherwise ordered, be appointed to the Select Committee on Substance
Abuse in the Community: Ms Anderson, Ms Sacilotto, Mr Knight, Mrs Miller, Mr Mills and Mrs Braham; and
Motion agreed to.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business)(by leave): I move that:
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Magistrates Act to provide that a person who has reached the age of 65 years but who has not yet reached the age of 70 years can be appointed as a relieving or acting magistrate under the act. Section 9A of the act currently provides that the Attorney-General may appoint a person to be a relieving magistrate for a period not exceeding six months where that person is eligible for appointment to the offices of Chief Magistrate, Deputy Chief Magistrate or Stipendiary Magistrate under section 4(3) of the act and where the efficient administration of justice requires such an appointment.
Similarly, section 9 allows for the appointment of a person who is eligible for appointment to office under section 4(3) to act as a magistrate during a vacancy, absence or inability in that office. Section 4(3) of the act provides for the Administrator to appoint people to the offices of Chief Magistrate, Deputy Chief Magistrate and Stipendiary Magistrate.
Section 5 states that a person is not eligible to be appointed to office under section 4(3) unless: they have been admitted to practice as a legal practitioner in an Australian jurisdiction or certain other similar jurisdictions such as England and New Zealand for at least five years, or they have been a magistrate in one of those jurisdictions and have the necessary educational qualifications prescribed for admission to practice in the Territory.
Section 7(2) of the act further provides that a person who has reached the age of 65 years cannot be appointed to office under section 4(3). Under the current wording contained in the Magistrates Act it is not entirely clear what ‘eligible for appointment to office’ under section 4(3) means. That is, it is not clear whether ‘eligibility’ under section 4(3) only refers to the matters set out in section 5 covering ‘eligibility for appointment’, or whether it has a wider interpretation and includes the age restrictions set out under section 7(2) of the act.
Accordingly, it is not clear whether a person who fulfils the eligibility criteria set out in section 5 but who is over 65 years old can be appointed a relieving or acting magistrate.
The amendments to the act proposed by this bill will make it clear that retired magistrates can be appointed as acting or relieving magistrates. This will allow the courts to make use of the valuable experience of retired magistrates from time to time when a temporary vacancy or absence or a temporary increase in case workload requires.
This bill seeks to clarify the meaning of the term ‘eligible’ by providing that a person who has reached the age of 65 years but who has not reached the age of 70 years can be appointed as a relieving or acting magistrate under the act.
That concludes my explanation of the bill. I will table the explanatory memorandum that accompanies the bill. Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise you of the presence in the gallery of local, interstate and overseas visitors as part of the Parliament House Public Tour Program. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend a very warm welcome to our visitors.
Members: Hear, hear!
Dr BURNS (Public Employment): Madam Speaker, I move that this Assembly:
On 5 August 2005, I attended a Workplace Relations Ministers Council, or WRMC, and discussed these issues with Commonwealth, state and territory ministers. I shall deal with both the Prime Ministerial statement, and the Workplace Relations Ministerial Council in detail.
The evidence is clearly and squarely that certain recurring themes are emerging. I believe the agenda of the Commonwealth government is as follows: the removal of rights and working conditions of workers; removal of powers of the independent umpire; and a lack of consultation with stakeholders and government. Through my speech today, I believe I will adequately and amply really reinforce that this is in fact the case.
First, I will turn to the ministerial council that I attended on 5 August in Melbourne. It was very interesting for me as the new Minister for Public Employment to be introduced to my counterparts from other jurisdictions at such a crucial stage. Whilst other matters were on the agenda, discussion mainly focused on the upcoming legislative program announced in the Prime Ministerial statement to which I referred before.
At the WRMC, we were advised by the federal Workplace Relations minister that legislation will be introduced into the Commonwealth parliament in October 2005 but, at this stage, details could not be provided as the legislation had not been drafted. The federal minister asked the state ministers to hand over their industrial relations power. The mood of the meeting was cordial, but it was clear that the federal minister was uncomfortable with the questions being asked and statements being made by the very experienced team of state and territory ministers.
My colleagues from other jurisdictions suggested that there has been a lack of consultation, there would be no opportunity to examine the legislation properly before it is introduced into federal parliament in October, that it is inappropriate for the Commonwealth to be asking the states to handover powers in the absence of any detail, and the various jurisdictions were prepared to address any real issues the Commonwealth was trying to resolve. Also, it was suggested that the details outlined in the Prime Ministerial statement meant that many workers will have their entitlements reduced and that there were serious limitations to the constitutional powers being relied upon by the Commonwealth.
Ministers also called upon the federal Workplace Relations minister to give an undertaking similar to that which is the subject of this motion. It is a matter of record that the federal minister declined the offer to make the assurance that no Australian worker will be worse off as a result of the upcoming legislation, and the corollary to declining this offer is that it is intended that some Australian workers will be worse off. This is a copy of what Mr Andrews …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: … was asked to sign, and it is a quote from John Howard in 1996. It says:
Following on, he also said:
John Howard, 1996. Here was the request of Mr Andrews:
Kevin Andrews declined to sign this and we can take inference that the rock-solid guarantee given by John Howard in 1996 is probably rock salt. It has dissolved; it is not there. There is an agenda by the Howard government to cut the real take-home pay of workers in this country.
In light of the offer by state and territory ministers to cooperatively address whatever issues are said to exist the federal minister was also asked what was the rationale for the proposal. In other words, the state and territory ministers said: ‘Okay, there is a problem with this. These are radical changes that are being proposed here, taking away industrial relations powers from the states, neutering the Industrial Relations Commission under constitutional powers of the Commonwealth. Why are you doing this? If there are issues here, let us work through them. Let us know what the issues are. Can you tell us what the issues are? What is the problem?’
Mr Mills interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Blain!
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, Mr Andrews could not answer that question. When he was asked: ‘Why are you introducing these radical changes to workplace relations?’, his response was that we needed to be economically competitive and made reference to China and India. The Prime Minister has also made reference to China and India when justifying the legislative change. We have been told it is all about maintaining standards of living in Australia, but the comparison is being made directly to China and India by the Commonwealth government. One hopes that Australian workers will not be expected to compete with China and India on wages because our skills shortage problem may just worsen a little. The response, however, does highlight the low wage, low skill and low trust policy prescription being advocated by the Commonwealth government.
I made two points on behalf of the Territory at that meeting. First, I inquired where, in the last federal election campaign, was this industrial relations agenda articulated. Second, I indicated our concern as a Territory with the linking of funding to the implementation of the Commonwealth government’s agenda. The federal minister remained silent of both counts so it would be reasonable to conclude that his failure to respond meant that there was no mention of this agenda in the election campaign because they might have been asked to give the same assurance, that no worker would be worse off, and that the Commonwealth government would be linking funding to the advancement of their agenda.
They are already doing that through roads and education funding, so basically they are twisting the arms of the states and territories. We are particularly at risk because 80% of our funding comes via the Commonwealth government, not own-source revenue. So they will use it as a big stick to try to implement their agenda.
I found the Western Australia experience particularly interesting in relation to what is known as the second wave of industrial relations reform proposed by the Prime Minister because Western Australia has had this in place for some time as a legacy from the Court government. My colleague from Western Australia, John Kobelke, Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection, held a shadow portfolio during the period of the Court Liberal government and was able to tell us of the devastation to people.
One story that stuck in my mind was that of a bus driver who came to see the minister. The bus driver’s job had been privatised and the new contractor made the bus driver sign an offer that, of course, he could not refuse: sign the individual workplace agreement on offer or you do not have a job. That was the choice he was given. The bus driver signed the workplace agreement and as a result of the ensuing loss of income could no longer meet the repayments for his house mortgage. As a consequence the driver lost his home. That means the financial security of that individual had been completely destroyed by the brave new world of industrial relations in Western Australia.
The macro level changes brought about in the West are worthy of note. The minimum wage ended up $50 per week less in Western Australia than in the rest of the country. Some of the other changes brought about by the Court government reforms were: first, a casual loading of 15% versus 20% elsewhere; second, a reduction in the number of conditions that were included in workplace agreements; the Court government’s second wave stipulated no more than nine core conditions to agreements; there were severe restrictions on taking protected industrial action; ballots requiring 75% of the work force to vote; restriction on the right of entry for union officials; and restriction of the powers of the Western Australian Industrial Commission.
It is evident that the proven failure of the West is being foisted on an unwilling Australia. The Prime Minister is on record as saying that he wants the Western Australian system of the 1990s to apply to the rest of the country. The Prime Minister is willing, however, to go even further than the Court government by reducing the number of conditions that underpin agreements to five compared with nine in Western Australia in the 1990s. I urge members opposite to consider the real and demonstrable effect of what is being proposed by the Prime Minister rather than blindly follow an ideological agenda.
I will turn now to the Prime Ministerial statement on Workplace Relations. On 26 May 2005, the Prime Minister delivered a statement concerning Workplace Relations. The significance of that statement was that it manifested the Commonwealth government’s agenda for change to industrial relations legislation. The Prime Minister’s statement is truly significant, as there has been no consultation with states, territories, unions, community groups, or, with the exception of a privileged few, most industry groups.
Moreover, much of what was articulated in the Prime Ministerial statement was not the subject of any discussion by the Commonwealth government prior to the most recent federal election. In other words, I do not believe there is a mandate for the changes being proposed, nor has there been any attempt to justify the changes. All that the Commonwealth government can say is that their radical attack on the industrial relations system is to maintain our level of prosperity. That is political rhetoric, but there is no detail as to how and why a reduction of workers’ rights and working conditions improve prosperity.
Both the Prime Minister and Minister for Workplace Relations have mentioned the need to be competitive and that India and China are expanding as major economic powers. There are two difficulties associated with this logic: first, we have always been required to compete on an international footing; and second, as previously stated, it is not feasible or desirable for us to compete with India and China on labour costs.
Five key elements were announced by the Prime Minister in his statement: attack the processes for setting minimum wages and conditions; attack on enterprise agreement making processes; reduction in allowable matters to be considered in workplace agreements – that is in the awards and in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission; virtual exclusion for most private sector workers of unfair dismissal provisions; and undermining state systems and imposition of a national system.
There are other matters that the Prime Minister foreshadowed in this statement. Of those other matters, perhaps the most distinctly alarming proposal, given the importance of the construction industry to the Territory, is the attack on building and construction workers and their unions.
Madam Speaker, I would like to move through the five major issues that were raised in the Prime Ministerial statement and deal with each one in order.
First, minimum wages and conditions: among the objectives of the Commonwealth government is to remove the power to set minimum wages from the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. The intention is to replace this specific role with a new tribunal called the Australian Fair Pay Commission. The AIRC is an independent tribunal that operates to the benefit of employers and employees. It is open and transparent. The big question that surrounds the removal of the power to set minimum wages from the AIRC is: why? Why is it being done?
The AIRC has served Australia well for over 100 years. The AIRC has been awarding modest increases to minimum wages, the most recent being $17 per week. The reason for the Commonwealth government’s proposal for a new so-called fair pay commission is that the Commonwealth government thinks that the AIRC is being too generous in setting wages and conditions. What other reason could there be?
A range of areas of employment in the Territory traditionally rely on minimum wages set by awards of the AIRC. Occupations such as shop assistants, bus drivers, gardeners, hair dressers, clerks, security officers, child care workers and aged care workers will be potentially disadvantaged by any reduction to or delay in future minimum wage increases.
The award system has also provided benefits for employers, particularly small employers, without the resources to negotiate the conditions of employment and rates of pay with their own employees on a regular basis. The ability to know that there is going to be a rate for a particular occupation and that rate is not going to be undercut by the competition has been of assistance to those businesses without the inclination to go into battle with their own work force every couple of years. It appears that the Commonwealth government has little regard for the utility of the award system and is driving small business towards AWAs whether they like it or not.
The second area of the Prime Ministerial statement was in relation to agreement making and AWAs. Chief among the objectives of the Commonwealth government is to expand the use of Australian Workplace Agreements, or AWAs. Embarrassed by the low uptake of AWAs, less than 3% of the work force, the Commonwealth government is hell-bent on them being thrust upon employers and employees. There has been a lot of hyperbole from the Commonwealth government concerning the effect of AWAs on workers. The Commonwealth government was for some time crowing about the higher rates of pay contained in AWAs. The Commonwealth government has since stopped making this claim in the face of academic research being undertaken and a dramatic decline in the average wage of workers under AWAs.
Professor David Peetz of Griffith University is the author of a paper titled The Impact on Workers of Australian Workplace Agreements and the Abolition of the No Disadvantage Test. The Commonwealth government does not release any statistics on AWAs and the assertion that workers are paid better under AWAs was based on ABS aggregate figures. The Office of the Employment Advocate used to release figures to the University of Sydney but after a study indicated that wage increases were less for workers under AWAs, they stopped providing the data.
Professor Peetz identified a range of reasons why the claim made by minister Andrews that AWAs provide for higher rates of pay than collective agreements is unable to be sustained. Among the comparatively small number of workers employed under AWAs, there is a disproportionate number of managerial workers on AWAs. This is the biggest single factor boosting the average pay of AWA workers, according to Professor Peetz. In order to increase the number of workers on AWAs, the Commonwealth government has placed all its senior public servants on AWAs, and we had the sight of people in Darwin working for minister Andrews’ department going out and striking on this very issue because they were being pushed on to AWAs, so even his own department is not happy about this move.
Another reason is that the hours worked by workers on AWAs are longer than those on collective agreements. The average used by the Commonwealth government to substantiate the claim is taken on a weekly rate, not an hourly rate. Even if we were comparing the same groups of workers, workers under AWAs are working longer for their pay.
Also, the statistical average rate of pay for employees on AWAs is boosted by the number of employees on AWAs being concentrated in some of the higher earning industries such as mining. This is not because of the AWAs, but rather because of the amount they earn. It was very interesting that the Western Australian minister said that when you compare miners in the mining industry in Western Australian and their wages with miners elsewhere in Australia, Western Australian workers are earning 8% less. So even those higher-earning people, like miners, on AWAs, have gradually, with time, had their conditions eroded so they are 8% behind miners elsewhere in Australia.
When the statistics that the federal Employment and Workplace Relations minister was quoting were taken, a large number of low individual contracts were in state jurisdictions, particularly Western Australia. Employers have now chosen AWAs in the federal jurisdiction with a Western Australian Labor government in power, removing legislation in the state jurisdiction and, as a result, the average rate of pay for AWA workers has decreased.
The term ‘collective agreement’ used in the Commonwealth government’s statistics includes non-union agreements, about 7% of collective agreements. Non-union collective agreements have provided consistently lower rates of pay than their union counterparts.
In fact, Professor Peetz identified a range of other very interesting statistics concerning AWAs. First, non-managerial male workers on AWAs receive 2% less than their counterparts on collective agreements. Women on AWAs receive 11% less compared with women covered by collective agreements. Casual workers on AWAs receive 15% less than casual workers on collective agreements, and permanent part-time workers on AWAs receive 25% less than permanent part-time workers on collective agreements.
It is clear that AWAs disadvantage the most vulnerable workers in the community who have the least capacity to bargain with their employer, and women in particular fare badly under AWAs. That may be the objective of the Commonwealth government, but it is certainly not an objective that is shared by the Martin Labor government. We believe in a fair go for Territory workers. Even if one compares industries and occupations where workers traditionally have had some bargaining power, for example mining, AWAs have produced worse results over time. While some financial incentives were used to initially get workers onto AWAs, the long-term effect has been to reduce wages compared with collective agreements. In addition, when considering relative rates of pay, the conditions lost by workers under AWAs have not been taken into consideration.
In 2004, a comprehensive analysis of industrial agreements was undertaken by the Melbourne University Centre for Employment and Labour Relations Law. Researchers noted some AWAs included clauses that, first, removed all forms of leave, required employees to work at any hour of the day or night on any day of the week on ordinary rates of pay, and forced workers to work up to 58 hours a week without overtime. It is clear that AWAs have produced a result of worse conditions of employment and lower rates of pay, but the few protections for workers faced with AWAs will be decreased even further if the Commonwealth government’s intentions are implemented.
AWAs are intended to pass a ‘no disadvantage’ test compared with the award. The Prime Minister is proposing that AWAs only have to include the five minimum conditions: a minimum rate of pay of $12.75 an hour; eight days sick leave; four weeks annual leave; unpaid parental leave; and weekly working hours.
Another suggestion contained in the Prime Ministerial statement is to remove the power of the AIRC to certify collective agreements, and give this power to the politically-motivated institution of the Office of the Employee Advocate. This removes the objective and independent scrutiny of agreements that have been exercised in a proper fashion by the AIRC. The Office of the Employment Advocate, by contrast, is a renowned rubber stamp that has no concern for the protection of workers’ rights. Coupled with the Commonwealth government’s agenda of moving workers to inferior AWAs, it is an attack on the award system, the base from which workplace agreements are made.
I now come to awards. The Workplace Relations Act was introduced by the Howard government. The 1996 act severely restricts the Industrial Relations Commission’s power to make awards, and probably as importantly, to hear and settle disputes by conciliation and arbitration. The Commonwealth government’s agenda is to remove another four allowable matters from the AIRC’s award-making powers, namely jury service, notice of termination, long service leave, and superannuation.
It has also been suggested that skill-based career structures will be removed from awards. This means that, irrespective of a worker’s level of skill or qualifications, the award will only provide for one minimum rate of pay. This is truly reverting to the lowest common denominator and, in an environment of skill shortage, is clearly a wrong move to be making, and that is, to be taking away the incentive for workers to obtain more skill.
The theme of attacking the standing of the AIRC continues. Whilst winding back the dispute settlement powers of the AIRC, the Commonwealth government wants to virtually remove the capacity of the commission to protect workers who are unfairly sacked.
Unfair dismissal legislation is a remedy available to workers in almost all advanced economies. The OECD recently concluded that the Australian legislative framework is amongst the least onerous of all OECD nations. The current unfair dismissal legislation was introduced as late as 1994. Soon after, a cap was placed on the amount of money that could be awarded and high income earners were excluded from making claims. Whilst the original legislation had its critics, a recent poll identified that 70% of Australians were opposed to its removal.
Very few workers avail themselves of the remedy of unfair dismissal. In the Territory last year, it was less that 0.2% of the work force. There is no evidence to substantiate that removal of unfair dismissal rights would create employment, and this is what the Commonwealth government has been saying: ‘Okay, if we remove unfair dismissal rights, it is going to create a whole lot of jobs’. Well, I do not believe that.
I now move to a national system. There could be some merit to one system of industrial relations in Australia. The Territory probably does benefit from the lack of confusion associated with overlapping state and federal industrial relations systems. The problem is that the Commonwealth government, because of constitutional limitations, would never be able to cover all employees. Estimates range from 65% to 80% of employees who could be covered by any federal system that might be created. That means as many as 35% of the work force will remain covered by state systems, irrespective of legislation introduced by the Commonwealth government.
Whilst this is not an argument that directly affects the Territory, it is a shameless grab for power by the Commonwealth government, and it demonstrates a sweeping arrogance now that the Coalition has control of the Senate. The Commonwealth government would be better served by attempting to talk through a national system with all state and territory governments rather than mounting a hostile takeover.
I turn now to other matters. One issue that cannot be ignored is the attack on building unions. The Commonwealth government has indicated that the bill previously rejected by the Senate concerning the building and construction industry will pass without amendment. The proposed building and construction legislation is, to say the least, draconian. The previous bill proposed compelling AWAs, restricting union officials’ right of entry and severely restricting protected industrial action. There is no justification for the changes sought. We do not suffer from any serious industrial problems in the construction industry in the Territory, but this could all change as a result of this legislation being considered.
The Northern Territory government has a very strong response to the proposals by the Commonwealth government. We have recently decided to investigate what can be done about the agenda being promoted by the Commonwealth government. In that regard, we stand shoulder to shoulder with other state and territory jurisdictions in our opposition to the attack on workers’ rights and conditions and the effect of removal of the independent umpire.
The Commissioner for Public Employment has established a working group to investigate what avenues are available to the Northern Territory government in order to combat the adverse effects for Territory workers. It is my intention to further report to this House as the Northern Territory government’s response develops. I will also report to members on the detail and impact of the Commonwealth government’s legislation as it emerges.
I often relate the story of how unionism is entrenched as part of my beliefs. I have been a unionist for much of my working life. My grandmother was widowed in World War I and left to bring up her two daughters on her own. She worked in the garment industry and relied on the union. She had two pillars in her life: one was the Catholic Church; and the other was the union. She relied on the union to ensure that her modest wages were kept enough to have her family fed.
She related the story to me that the boss used to stand behind them with a stop watch. She got up, put her work down, along with the others, and said: ‘We will do a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay.’ These were proud people, and they fought with their union for their conditions. It is very important and it is something of which we should never lose sight: what we have inherited from others who have had to fight for these conditions that the Commonwealth government wants to erode now that it has control of the Senate.
Many would say that we have come a long way since the time of my grandmother; now workers can work with dignity and receive appropriate pay and conditions. To some extent this is true. However, many of the things workers take for granted have been achieved through the existing industrial relations system. It served Australia well for over 100 years and now all of this is under threat. Be under no illusion: the Commonwealth government’s radical agenda will reduce the living standard of those members of society who are most vulnerable.
The Commonwealth government is about to embark on an unparalleled propaganda exercise to sell their radical agenda to an unconvinced electorate. The figure of $20m is being bandied about.
I ask the question: if this agenda is so good, why does it take millions of dollars to sell it? I am sure that other speakers from this side will amplify these concerns. I urge members to make this simple request of the Prime Minister and do what we can do to try to protect the most vulnerable in our work force.
Madam Speaker, I commend the motion to the House.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, thank God the minister has finished! What drivel! What drivel!
In my response, I take pleasure in dealing with some facts, which the minister, of course, and his good union Labor colleagues will not like, but it is appropriate that I deal with them. I look forward to going through my contribution probably with less passion than the minister. I understand his passion. He obviously has union blood running though his veins, and good on him! The best of luck to him, but passion about issues of a political nature should be measured against the need to be informed, the need to be sensible, the need to be considered. Whilst I respect the minister’s passion, I do not respect his lack of thoughtful consideration of the facts.
In any event, it is interesting that this is the second time in two days that I rise to respond to a government motion that amounts to politicking. In this case, it is a scare campaign. It is a scare campaign, and make no mistake that this motion is about the government doing its bidding for all of their Labor friends all around the country, including their Labor friends in the ACTU. This is about scaremongering.
Members of the Australian Labor Party could get jobs as extras in a horror movie. They are so good at scaremongering. The fact is that there is no legislation before the parliament so the minister is in fantasy land, talking about what might be, what could happen. Minister, I am going to pull you back into the world in which I live and on to the planet that I am on. It is unfortunate that you are not on the same planet.
The minister has called on this Assembly to express its concern about the Commonwealth government’s industrial relations agenda. I think it is a reasonable question to ask: why is it that the Labor government, two months from its election, is so obsessed with federal issues? Two months after an election, I would have thought a fairly keen, recently elected, unprecedented majority sort of a government might be interested in going back to their check list to check off all of the promises that they made during the election. Maybe it is arrogance. There could be a bit of arrogance creeping in. Maybe they say: ‘Well, we have four years. The Chief Minister, she does not have to bother to turn up, she can go to Indonesia; we still have 18’.
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition well knows that she cannot reflect on the presence or absence of a member of this House, and I ask her to withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: That is correct. There is a point of order. You need to withdraw those comments.
Ms CARNEY: May I speak to the point of order, Madam Speaker, or in the alternative, seek your clarification?
Madam SPEAKER: What is your point?
Ms CARNEY: The clarification I seek, and we touched on the issue yesterday, was that the government specifically sought and obtained a leave of absence …
Mr Stirling: As required under standing orders!
Ms CARNEY: If I could finish. Sought and obtained a leave of absence for the Chief Minister. It is very much on the Parliamentary Record that she is absent. In light of that, I inquire as to why it is objectionable for me to refer to her absence, which was leave of absence that the government sought.
Mr Stirling: Because it is in the standing orders.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms CARNEY: That is the point of clarification.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, Leader of the Opposition. I did seek advice yesterday from the Clerk regarding this matter, and the standing order is simply that you cannot reflect on the presence or absence of any member.
Mr Stirling: Yes, you should read them.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I pick up on the interjection of the Acting Chief Minister who is so into providing me with gratuitous advice. It is going to be a long four years, Madam Speaker. The Acting Chief Minister should know right here, right now that while he feels very comfortable providing me with his advice, I do not propose to take any of it. You can fire away your churlish, silly comments, but I would be advising you, Acting Chief Minister, to save your breath.
In any event, perhaps it is a touch of arrogance on the part of the Labor government that they are putting to one side all of the issues they raised in the election. I thought that they felt very strongly about them; perhaps that is not the case. They are absolutely obsessed with getting stuck into the Commonwealth government and potentially risking whatever good relationship there might be with the Commonwealth government. I make that point, but urge you to proceed somewhat carefully.
Mr Stirling: I will treat that gratuitous advice in the same way you treat mine.
Ms CARNEY: If you want to have a go at the Commonwealth government then that is your prerogative. Where appropriate, we will be with you.
Mr Stirling: I thought you might be worth listening to.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Ms CARNEY: It is good that the Acting Chief Minister is obviously looking to leave the Chamber, Madam Speaker, because I can then get on with my comments.
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: You need to speak from your chair, Acting Chief Minister.
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Madam Speaker! To the Leader of the Opposition, it has just been pointed out that it is in standing orders as to whether she can refer to the absence or presence of members in the Chamber, so I ask for it to be withdrawn.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, please withdraw the reference to …
Ms Carney: Well, Madam Speaker …
Madam SPEAKER: You cannot speak sitting in your chair, Leader of the Opposition.
Ms CARNEY: I will withdraw it happily, Madam Speaker. Goodbye, Deputy Chief Minister.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition!
Ms CARNEY: Returning to the issues at hand, the obsession with getting stuck into the Commonwealth government is to be noted.
This debate, however, needs some consideration of what is the Commonwealth government’s industrial relations agenda. The government has such little interest in matters federal on some occasions that we see the inconsistent approach of this government. If you look at the uranium mining issue only a week or so ago, the Minister for Mines and Energy abdicates the Territory’s role in uranium mining, so it is having a each-way bet. It is saying: ‘We are really interested in this one, but with uranium, no, you come and take the decision away from us’. Can you at least be consistent?
Mr Henderson: Wrong, wrong! Read the legislation.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, I digress …
Mr Henderson: You are supposed to be a lawyer.
Ms CARNEY: Now I know that the bully and thug who is the member for Wanguri …
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition, you will withdraw ‘thug’.
Ms CARNEY: I withdraw the references to ‘bully’ and ‘thug’, Madam Speaker.
Now, we get back again to, what is the industrial relations agenda of the Commonwealth government. The agenda of the government is still evolving. Hello, I live on planet Earth, members of the Australian Labor Party; try to keep up. There is no legislation before the parliament, there is no legislation before the parliament and, one more time, there is no legislation before the parliament.
The Commonwealth government has shown, over and over again, that it does support open debate on important issues that affect the people who have elected it, unlike the members of government sitting opposite.
The fact is the Commonwealth government continues to seek the best possible advice from all sections of our community with regard to the issue. Just yesterday, it was reported that the federal Minister for Workplace Relations, Kevin Andrews, announced that a Senate inquiry would assess any such industrial relations bill, a bill that does not exist yet, but a Senate committee would assess it after its tabling. The federal minister pointed out that complex legislation is exactly that: complex.
Madam Speaker, this motion is about political grandstanding and, as I said earlier, scaremongering. I did not expect that I would be spending great chunks of my time as an elected member of the Northern Territory Assembly participating in the shallow and shameless political stunts that make up this motion and, I suspect, many more to come. Next week, no doubt we will be talking about other federal issues.
A casual observer may well take the view that we must be close to a federal election, but we are not. Why is government doing this? It is because it has lost its way or is so utterly arrogant that it is just refusing to deal with the issues that it went to the election on only two months ago.
In any event, the minister wants the Commonwealth government to, and I quote parts of the motion, consult with the Territory government regarding the proposed legislation. Why should the Commonwealth government believe that you are sincere about consultation on this matter when just last week, you indicated that uranium mining decisions were too hard for you and that if anyone rang up about uranium mining, the minister said: ‘I will get them to ring you, Ian’. It is completely inconsistent.
It is worth pointing out that industrial relations reform was part of the Commonwealth government’s pre-election platform. Now, you blokes have just finished an election. You will say in this House, no doubt often over the next four years, that you have a mandate to do this, that and the other, that the people of the Territory spoke, rah, rah, rah. You are in the same business as the people in Canberra who are in government. The Commonwealth government has, as one of its pre-election platforms, industrial relations reform. That is obviously why you lot did not vote for them.
Surely, even the minister would be the first to admit that the highest level of consultation is an election, and that is the best opportunity for people to express their views. Minister, those views have been expressed. Get used to it. Guess what? The views were expressed to a level of dissatisfaction that has apparently assigned Labor federally to oblivion. I know that you are upset about that but, that is politics.
Last week, we had the mines minister throwing his hands in the air and surrendering your government’s involvement in expanding uranium mining. The minister did surrender our sovereign rights to be involved in any expanded uranium mining in the Northern Territory, and he did that because he had to comply with the federal Labor Party’s three mines policy. What people have not been reminded about in the context of the uranium debate, three mines policy, and we picked up last night, the member for Nhulunbuy, in August 1994, voted with the Labor Party in this House to condemn Labor's three mines policy. I do not mind people disagreeing with me but, please, be consistent. The very man who had a lot to say voted with the government in 1994 to condemn Labor’s three mines policy. I wonder what the Minister for Mines and Energy thinks about that.
Yesterday, when we talked about the nuclear waste facility, I listened to the impassioned pleas of many members of the government. I agreed with them, for the most part. I really did. I thought that members of the Labor Party were serious about approaching certain issues in a bipartisan way. My colleagues and I started to think that there may be some way we could put politicking aside and work together in a bipartisan way for the betterment of our community.
Yet 24 hours later, I am here participating in a shallow and shameless stunt aimed at filling time because the Notice Paper has so little on it. So full was your agenda for your second term, there are only half a dozen items on it, probably less brought about by government. You are filling up time. You have 19 members. You do not even know what to talk about. The Chief Minister - well, I cannot refer to her being here or not - but you are a rudderless ship within two months of your election, and you are pulling this sort of stunt. I am wasting my time participating in it because it is a motion that you lot have brought into this Chamber and, as Opposition Leader and members of the opposition, we must respond to it; it is appropriate that we do so.
However, in the course of responding, it is appropriate and necessary that we say, and say again: this is a stunt! Two months ago, you lot were re-elected to get on with the job of governing the Territory. Territorians have the right to expect that that is what you will do; not this sort of stuff. It is really quite pointless. Apart from the political stunt, I say again that you are debating something that, at this stage, does not even exist.
Let me give you some important facts about industrial relations and, as I said yesterday, the premiership team from the Territory in Canberra. Here are some facts …
Mr Henderson: Tell us about Paris. How did Dave enjoy Paris?
Ms CARNEY: I am glad the member for Wanguri is having a bit of a giggle. He just hates it when we give him some information that he knows is right, and all he does is either get loud or starts to smile, thinking that is going to have an effect. Well, it does not, member for Wanguri; it just does not.
Since 1996, Workplace Relations reform in Australia …
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: I will keep going because at least the microphone will pick it up. I am happy just to talk into it.
Since 1996, Workplace Relations reform in Australia has delivered real wage increases of more than 14%. It has delivered the lowest unemployment levels in almost 30 years, more than 1.6 million new jobs, seven million Australians in full-time work, the lowest level of strikes ever, higher productivity and higher living standards.
It has been widely reported that the Commonwealth government’s proposed workplace relations reforms are being constructed to continue that outstanding record. In his latest testimony to the House of Representative Standing Committee in February this year, the Governor of the Reserve Bank stated, when speaking on the topic of how to boost Australia’s productivity performance, and I quote:
Indeed, there are. That was the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia, someone whom even members of the Australian Labor Party would respect.
Perhaps the OECD’s latest economic survey on Australia issued in February this year might be of some interest to the minister. Under the heading Further Reforms to Labour Market Legislation Would Also Encourage Employment, the OECD states, and I quote:
Perhaps the minister will take notice of the Labor Party’s own economic modellers, their friends at Access Economics. Access Economics states in a report entitled Workplace Relations: The way forward, in February 2005, and I quote:
The proposed workplace relations reforms should deliver higher productivity, increasing real wages, an environment conducive to lower interest rates and, most importantly, choice and flexibility for our workers.
Since 1996, the Commonwealth government’s workplace relations reforms have contributed to a stable and low inflationary climate. To argue otherwise is absurd. Every single home owner in the Northern Territory, indeed Australia, is a beneficiary of those reforms. Lower interest rates are a direct result of workplace reforms. Now government, sitting in this Chamber, wants to try to tell the Commonwealth government how to suck eggs and how it would run federal industrial relations. I do not think people will buy it. I say again that there is still no legislation before the parliament and the Commonwealth government is still consulting with appropriate stakeholders.
Let us provide some details about their reported proposals. The Commonwealth government is reportedly, and I stress reportedly, going to establish a fair pay commission to better protect the minimum wages, enshrine minimum conditions in legislation for the first time, introduce a fair pay and conditions standard to better protect workers in the bargaining process, simplify the agreement-making process at the workplace, provide modern award protection for those not considered by agreements, fix Labor’s unfair dismissal laws and introduce a national system of workplace relations.
It is reported today that the Commonwealth government is considering, as part of its proposed workplace changes, tougher laws to control bosses who might use any of the proposed laws to bully …
Mr Stirling: We saw that headline.
Ms CARNEY: … or exploit workers. I cannot hear what the member for Nhulunbuy said, but I know he is getting back into his grumbling bear routine. I do remember, probably a couple of years ago, sitting in this place when the minister in his capacity as minister for education spoke, I thought, very genuinely, very sincerely, about the problems of bullying in the workplace. In fact, if memory serves, I think his department issued some brochures and really got stuck into improving workplace relations, so seriously did the member for Nhulunbuy take this issue of bullying. I would have thought something like tougher laws to control bosses who might use any of the proposed laws to bully or exploit workers might be of particular interest to the member for Nhulunbuy and, indeed, his parliamentary colleagues.
According to The Australian newspaper, a government agency, the Office of Workplace Services, will be given a much enhanced role in protecting workers from having their wages or work conditions stripped. The Office of Workplace Services currently polices the application of federal awards and investigates workers’ claims of being underpaid or denied entitlements. I stress that all of this is reported, reported, reported. There is no bill before parliament.
I note that senior journalist Paul Kelly points out, also in today’s Australian newspaper, that Australia’s labour market remains more regulated than either Tony Blair’s Britain or Helen Clark’s New Zealand. Mr Kelly adds that Australia’s unemployment rate is higher as a consequence. Members should read today’s Australian.
The proposed reforms recognise that Australia’s workplace has changed. Australia, and particularly the Northern Territory, is now a nation of enterprise workers. I quote from Mr Kelly in today’s Australian:
The only reason our workers are finally out of the prehistoric age is because of the actions of, it could be said, one of the finest Liberal Prime Ministers Australia has ever seen, Paul Keating. Prime Minister Keating started this ball rolling and Prime Minister Howard is continuing the task. To argue otherwise ignores history and facts.
Minister, if you are like the rest of us, you will have a mortgage. The low interest rates that you and I and others are enjoying is a direct result of Australia’s increased productivity and our nation’s move away from the clutches of the ACTU. The scare campaign is all about flagging fortunes of federal flunkies. That is what this is about. That is what this is about. The ACTU is haemorrhaging membership - we all know that – haemorrhaging!
Rather than fixing its ideology, rather than modernising so that it comes into the real world, it is reacting like a bunch of Neanderthals under pressure and it starts banging things around. Neanderthals are extinct, and it could be said that the ACTU, stuck in its ideology, needs to move with the times. I do not for a minute say that everything the ACTU does and says I have disagreement with, but on this, it is scaremongering and it is a partnership with the Australian Labor Party, a misguided one.
I understand the Territory Labor Party is funded by unions both in the Territory and nationally. I also understand that union membership in the Northern Territory is the lowest in Australia, something for consideration. As I said, this motion is about the masters of the ministers opposite me, the ACTU. It is also about pleasing the government’s union friends and the federal Labor Party, make no mistake. In truth, the minister has as much real interest in this matter as his colleague, the mines minister, in uranium mining.
Let me point out that the Northern Territory’s federal Labor representatives, Senator Trish Crossin and Warren Snowdon, showed no commitment to the people and workers of the Northern Territory when they voted to oppose the Commonwealth government’s recent tax cuts. They voted to oppose it. Is that acting in the interests of the Northern Territory’s workers and families? I think not.
The opposition rejects this motion as political mischief. Blind Freddy can see that it is shallow and shameless grandstanding. It is also scaremongering.
In terms of where we are with this issue, noting that there is no legislation before the parliament and the Commonwealth government has some way to go before it announces the reforms that the doomsayers on the other side think they are going to reform, I urge members of the Australian Labor Party, and I know it is not easy for them, to settle down, wait for the facts and then make your decision. Labor waited 27 years to get into office in the Northern Territory. I am quite sure it can wait a few more months for the details of the proposed federal industrial relations reforms before it passes judgment.
Mr STIRLING (Acting Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I rise to second the motion moved by the Minister for Public Employment, and I commend both the content of what he had to say and the spirit in which that contribution was delivered to this House because he is absolutely genuine and serious in every word he said in that statement, as is this government.
It is apparent to us that the Commonwealth government has been entirely deceptive and misleading when it comes it this reform agenda for industrial relations changes.
Before I go to any of the detail of that, I want to pick up on a couple of things that the Leader of the Opposition had to say in relation shallow, shameless grandstanding by this government, and that the government is simply doing the pathetic bidding of unionists. They are a couple of good quotes that will stand us in good stead, I think, with our friends and supporters out there. She needs to understand the truth of this matter: there is no politics or grandstanding on this issue for us; it is straight out a protection of workers’ rights.
This is the callous cynicism that this Leader of the Opposition brings to this Chamber because she accuses this government of running on federal issues - yesterday, nuclear waste dump; today, industrial relations – rather than those issues we took to the Northern Territory election not all that long ago. Let me assure the Leader of the Opposition that every agency of this government is very busy, extremely busy, rolling out, translating and interpreting the commitments and election promises made by this government, to get them out to make a difference to the lives of Territorians, and that work is going on as we speak. She seemed to suggest that this government is not capable of running a number of things at the same time. Any government that is not capable of that simply ought not be there.
Where the cynicism and callous indifference to this issue comes in was the statement she made when she said: ‘We have had a federal election in October last year. We have just had a Territory election, you have come back with a big majority, why are you running on these issues?’ as if you only run on issues close to an election. Governments only run on these sorts of issues close to an election. That is simply not the case. This is the job of government, whether it is protecting the interests of Northern Territorians in opposing the nuclear waste dump, whether it is standing up for the rights of workers and ensuring that those sacrifices made by unions and workers all of those years ago, going right back to the Tolpuddle Martyrs, which was mentioned this morning on ABC radio. That is what this government stands for: a fair go for workers. We will continue to do that. We made a series of commitments prior to the election, coming out of a consultative process with the unions affiliated with Unions NT.
The Chief Minister, very appropriately, was able to make commitments on the May Day weekend not to introduce Australian Workplace Agreements, not to remove the historic right to union payroll deductions for public servants, not to hinder access to union officials to the workplace, and not to contract out services that can be directly undertaken within government as far as possible.
The then Leader of the Opposition, prior to the election, refused to make the same commitments. In fact, when he was asked by Unions NT what his position, and the Country Liberal Party’s position, was on the Commonwealth government’s industrial relations reform agenda, the then Leader of the Opposition said he had no idea. He had no idea! Now, either he was being cute or he was being duplicitous because it certainly was the issue of the day over the last six or nine months, and it is well known that Prime Minister Howard has long had this ideologically driven desire deep within him, from the time he was about five, apparently, to run unions out of this country. Lo! and behold, in this last federal election in October, delivering a Senate majority in July, as we have seen, takes him back to those deep roots of hatred of unions, hatred of collective bargaining, hatred of a fair go for Australian workers and all power to the bosses in the equation.
It is obvious that if the Country Liberal Party had been elected last term, they would have run with their federal counterparts on this issue. They would have ripped up collective bargaining and would have driven unions out of the workplace. They would have had AWAs across the face of the public sector before you knew what was what. Whether the then Leader of the Opposition had any idea about it or not, that is simply what would have happened; they would not have stood up to the Commonwealth government.
Our commitments differ markedly from the Commonwealth government’s agenda. We have seen first-hand in the Northern Territory that Australian Workplace Agreements will result in lesser conditions of employment, lower wages for workers and, of course, the whole rationale behind Australian Workplace Agreements is to de-unionise work forces and drive down conditions of employment.
If these Australian Workplace Agreements are so good for the employer, so good for the country, so good for the employee, so good for productivity, tell me this: in the nine years since the Howard government came to power in 1996, why are just 2.4% of workers in this country covered by Australian Workplace Agreements? Since 1996, he has been busy beavering away trying to get these Australian Workplace Agreements accepted across the length and breadth of the country and just 2.4% of workers in this country are covered by Australian workplace agreements. He has officers of the Employee Advocate out there running around workplaces every day of the week, every week of each year since 1996 telling people how good these AWAs are, and they ought to get on them whether they are a boss or a worker. Why is it that I stand here today, nine years after this agenda came to the fore and AWAs were introduced, just 2.4% of workers in this country are covered by Australian Workplace Agreements?
That tells me something. It tells me that they think they stink. Workers think they stink, companies think they stink, employers will not go near them, and still we have Prime Minister Howard saying this will be the saving of the country. Not so, and not our view.
Where the workers are unskilled or in low-skilled, low-paid positions across the work force, Australian Workplace Agreements absolutely put the full weight in the hands of one side of the equation, the employer, and not the employee. Employees have no bargaining power whatsoever. We saw the example of the Palmerston Town Council. They simply knocked off two weeks leave: ‘Sign on the dotted line if you want the job. Yes, four weeks leave, no negotiation around that. This is an AWA and this is going to tell you that you now have four weeks leave’. Existing employees have six, but this is the way of AWAs.
As an employer ourselves, the government recognises that we do not have a right to interfere with a proper relationship between an employee and their union. We believe an employee has the right to have their union fees deducted as they have authorised. To deny people that right is merely a transparent attempt to make it more difficult for people to access union membership.
One of the more insidious proposals of the Commonwealth government’s reform agenda is to restrict the right of entry of union officials to the workplace. It follows the theme, as I said, of making the efforts of workers to become members of their union as difficult as possible. Legislation already provides for officials to hold a permit, and that permit can, of course, be revoked at any time that the right of entry is misused or abused in any way. Why, then, is there any need to further restrict union officials’ right of entry? It is done by way of a permit system now.
With those commitments in relation to not contracting out services, over the last 10 to 15 years, we saw conservative state and Commonwealth governments systematically contract out a whole range of government services and sell off public assets. One of the reasons public debt across all the other jurisdictions in Australia has generally been brought under control is not by better fiscal management necessarily, but by their willingness to sell off quite lucrative government assets. In some cases, it has been used as a way of driving down conditions of service and wages, and shifting employment from what is seen as quite secure public sector employment conditions to more precarious employment and conditions of service with a contractor.
There are some services that cannot be provided by government and are better dealt with by the private sector. We recognise that and we use commonsense when we come to those decisions. However, we were re-elected earlier this year and we have an obligation to put in place those policies that we committed to in the election campaign.
That stands in stark contrast, again, to the understanding the Commonwealth government brought to Australians in relation to this whole reform agenda. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me on which day in the election campaign Prime Minister Howard said: ‘I have a dream. I have a new vision. I have a better way forward for Australian workers and bosses and workplaces, and it is called a new industrial relations agenda’? Not one mention throughout the 2004 election campaign. It went for a few days; it went for weeks, if I recall. He had plenty of time to put this out in the face of Australians and see what they thought of it. Aside, then, of course, from not having a mandate, given that it was not raised at all in the election, there is no justification for the sorts of changes that the Prime Minister mooted.
When addressing the Liberal Party National Conference concerning the supposed need to drastically, dramatically and radically reform the industrial relations agenda in Australia, the Prime Minister did not rely on any economic argument or argument about productivity to justify these. Rather, he described the agenda as an ‘article of faith’. An article of faith! This is what I said at the outset, Madam Speaker. It is something very deep within him. Something very bad happened to the Prime Minister when he was about five or six and he grew up hating unions and workers ever after.
The CLP has a long and proud history of resisting unions and making it difficult for unions. Twenty-six-and-a-half years until the place got sick of it. So they feel quite at ease and, of course, it is no surprise to us that the Leader of the Opposition would reject this motion out of hand. It is entirely consistent with CLP ideology over the 26 and a bit years that they were in government.
It is the ideological agenda of this Commonwealth government made possible, of course, by gaining control of the Senate. I would be disappointed, honestly, if the CLP did change its spots because it would not be the CLP I knew and came to love over all that 26 years if they came in here said: ‘We now support you’.
During our first term of government, at one stage they discovered the Territory had blackfellas and they came in telling us about blackfellas for a few weeks. Then it was single mums - My God! There are a lot of single mums in the Northern Territory - and they got very precious about that. Then late, very late, in our four-year term, they discovered unions and they came in here telling us about unions. They said there are such things as trade unions out there. Workers belong to them, and they agitate for rights. It would be just too cute by half if the opposition did support this motion. I am proud that the Leader of the Opposition stands exactly where many of her predecessors in the CLP have stood before on these questions.
It is interesting to note the previously made claim that legislative change to unfair dismissal laws would create 70 000 jobs. Well, we did not see that anywhere in the pre-election campaign advertising in the lead up to the October federal election. That had been the subject of earlier government propaganda based on a survey subsequently proven to be flawed. You could create a number of jobs by removing unfair dismissal laws simply to put people into jobs that you have unfairly dismissed across the length and breadth of Australia, but that is not really job creation so much as job substitution.
Academics roundly criticised the methodology and conclusions of that survey. There is no evidence that the current laws have cost jobs. The question remains: how does making it easier to sack workers benefit the security of employment for Australian workers? There is no evidence that individual bargaining promotes productivity.
In fact, Professor Peetz of Griffith University noted in his paper Is Individual Contracting More Productive? that productivity growth in New Zealand following the introduction of the Employment Contracts Act was considerably lower than productivity growth in Australia under a regime of collective bargaining. The reforms initiated by the Keating government maintained fairness and equity for workers and that is the difference between the Labor Party and the Country Liberal Party and the Commonwealth government on this issue. It is one of equity, fairness and a fair go for Australian workers.
In addition to the initial removal of fairness, the Commonwealth government is creating an element of confusion, which was always bound to happen as a result of the lack of consultation surrounding the proposed legislation. It is interesting the Leader of the Opposition said the reason we have not seen this legislation to date is they are out there consulting. Who with? Who are they consulting with? The Australian Chamber of Industry perhaps and other like-minded bodies. They certainly have not been to this government or to Unions NT to discuss it, but perhaps unions and Labor state governments are not part of the round of consultation that we are told the Commonwealth government is involving itself in.
We saw the Prime Minister slap down his deputy over the issue of public holidays in the very same Question Time. The Deputy Prime Minister, of course, had the audacity to suggest that some public holidays should be sacrosanct. I would have thought that was a fair call, but the Prime Minister immediately countermanded that reasonable suggestion by stating that all public holidays are up for grabs.
It is apparent to us that the Prime Minister wants to recreate an Australia pre-1950s, perhaps even pre-1940s; we are not sure how far back he wants to go, but we certainly have this image of a little kernel very deep within him that is going to burst forth into great bloom and take all Australians with it.
In so doing and so achieving this grand vision, the Prime Minister is going to remove, absolutely abolish, fairness and equity as the basis of our industrial relations system and, of course, shift the balance of power firmly into the hands of just one of the participants, and that is the employer. I was going to say ‘at the table’ but there will be no table because there will not be discussion or negotiation in a collective bargaining process. There will not be unions representing the body of workers on one hand and the employer on the other. That simply does not occur under an Australian Workplace Agreement: ‘Here it is. Sign it, send it back to us. If we do not get it back in the next five days, we will assume you do not want the job and we will take the next person on the list’.
I was interested in what my colleague, the member for Johnston, was saying about the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. This is probably the most far-reaching legislation ever put down by any jurisdiction. In 1901, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act established the Australian Arbitration and Conciliation Commission, as it was then known, that has served this country for 104 years. There is no other institution in Australia outside parliament itself that has served the interests of Australians so well and balanced the interest of employers on the one hand and employees on the other.
As recently as a few months ago, when this government was completing negotiations around an enterprise bargaining agreement with the Australian Education Union for our teachers, it was necessary, very late in the piece, to go to the commission, to sit down. The commissioner heard both sides and made a ruling, which was accepted by both sides. On that legislation, as I said, I congratulate our federal forefathers because it was the most visionary legislation ever enacted possibly in the world, but certainly in this country. A body such as that has served this country so well for 104 years and we are going to gut it; we are going to strip it of all of its power, and those powers will reside with the Office of the Employee Advocate, a little political office set up by the Prime Minister to realise his dream.
All thinking Australians resent this, as we have seen by way of polls. Certainly, the feedback on the ACTU’s advertising campaign put the Commonwealth government on the back foot so quickly one would have thought they saw it coming as early as May Day. The ACTU was planning a major advertising campaign, and I do not think that thinking Australians will allow the Commonwealth government and Prime Minister Howard to ride roughshod over the rights of workers.
It is not a matter of tradition. The fact that it has been there 100 years does not make it good. The fact that it has worked effectively for 104 years is the reason we ought to protect the Australian Industrial Relations Commission and we ought not have our legacy in this regard torn apart …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Mr STIRLING: … at the whim of the current Commonwealth government. Madam Speaker, I urge members to support the motion.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise you of the presence in the gallery of the Evergreen Seniors Group, the Tuesday Seniors Club, senior citizens from Brennan electorate, and visitors from the Northern Territory, South Australia, New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a very warm welcome to all of you.
Members: Hear, hear!
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I support the motion moved by the Minister for Public Employment and seconded by the Treasurer.
I will respond very briefly to something the Leader of the Opposition said in her speech regarding bullying. She is quite correct, that unions and those who represent the labour work force will encourage any provisions imposing penalties for bullying or preventing bullying by employers, and we will wait to see more information in relation to that.
The Prime Minister claimed in his address to the Sydney Institute on 11 July 2005 that his government’s proposed industrial relations reforms are:
With the greatest respect to our Prime Minister, what a load of tripe! This is a person who, in 1983, said:
In other words, to destroy our industrial relations system, a system that has served this country for well over 100 years.
Mr Howard led the right wing within the Liberal Party, colloquially known as the ‘drys’. At the time, Mr Howard was Deputy Leader. Opposing his agenda were the ‘wets’, led in the industrial relations field by the then shadow industrial relations minister, Ian Macphee.
Paul Kelly, whom the Leader of the Opposition quoted today from his article in The Australian, gives a succinct account in his book The End of Certainty: The Story of the 1980s, and I quote:
For members unfamiliar with the industrial relations framework, the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission was the forerunner to the present Australian Industrial Relations Commission. Paul Kelly continued:
In other words, it is a factional brawl in the Liberal Party: two different ideologies, contesting for dominance of the Liberal Party, not economic. I return to Mr Kelly’s words:
Not ideologically motivated, the Prime Minister said. Let us test that statement against history. The 1980s saw an ideological power struggle within the Liberal Party. Howard eventually wins that struggle, and eventually becomes Prime Minister.
Australian Workplace Agreements and the Office of the Employer Advocate are part of the Workplace Relations Act 1996. This is decentralisation of industrial relations. This is taking away power from the Industrial Relations Commission and putting it in the hands of another organisation, which, by its very title and job description, is there to protect only one party’s interests: the employer. This is attacking collective bargaining by forcing employees to negotiate on their own without the aid of a union. This is dismantling an industrial relations system and setting up the free market model.
So far, we are in to the mid- to late 1990s and just prior to the last federal election. So far it is all looking very ideological to me, not looking anything like productivity driven. Why? Well, the economy of Australia in the mid- to late 1990s and at present is not the same as that of the early 1980s. We have companies announcing record profits year in and year out. It sounds to me that is rather productive, if company profit is any measure.
The voluntary uptake of AWAs is less that 3%. Obviously, collective bargaining continues to contribute to our productive nation as well as deliver real wages to the workers. Obviously, employers do not feel that there is any productivity gain from an AWA. In fact, I can tell members that in my role as an Industrial Officer with the LHMU, I discussed what AWAs were with the Human Resources Manager of one of the Territory’s large employers. I explained that AWAs were individual contracts that meant different employees doing the same classification of job could have different rates of pay depending on how good that individual was at negotiating. They could have different entitlements such as holidays, different penalties for working holidays, and different minimum hours of work, and this could be repeated across each of the various classifications. The Human Resources Manager explained what an administrative nightmare that would make their job, and that the process of enterprise bargaining with the unions was much easier. Clearly, no productivity for that HR Manager.
We have less than a 3% uptake on the alternative AWA industrial instrument despite the Commonwealth government aggressively promoting AWAs. The Commonwealth government, as we have heard, ties provision of funding and awarding of contracts to the use of AWAs. If productivity was the yardstick, why would this be required? If productivity was the key motivation for destroying the centralised system and role of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission and setting up the free market model, why has over 97% of the free market refused to have anything to do with it despite inducements by the Commonwealth government?
The Commonwealth government has now taken control of the Australian Senate. What was one of the first things it did post-election? Out of nowhere, it announced it would tear apart the industrial relations framework and complete the transition of our industrial relations to the free market model, the culmination of the ideological goal of Mr Howard since at least 1983.
Let us not forget that there was no focus on this by the Coalition during the election. The Commonwealth government cannot claim to have a mandate from the people for this agenda for it never raised it with them. This is purely political opportunism to push through a right wing economic rationalist model of industrial relations without even the economic justification.
I ask honourable members to keep in mind the ideological agenda as I discuss the role of the Industrial Relations Commission in maintaining the safety net. I also ask you to think about the other part of Mr Howard’s statement from July this year, that the changes are:
Let us apply that to the removal of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission and its ability to set minimum wages. Millions of Australians depend on the minimum wage safety net. Each year, the Commonwealth Liberal government has opposed the size of the increases to the minimum wage sought by union movement on behalf of Australian employees. Peak employer bodies also oppose the increase.
In 2005, the ACTU sought an increase of $26.60. The Commonwealth government argued for $11, as did the Australian Industry Group. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry argued for $10. The commission, as we have heard, awarded $17. This represents a weekly wage of $484.40 as against the Commonwealth government’s position, which would have meant a minimum wage of $434.40 a week.
Honourable members can see that the independent umpire, the AIRC, has not simply sided with the ACTU nor the peak employer bodies and the Commonwealth government. In fact, if you go back through the changes to the safety net made since the Workplace Relations Act came into effect, you will find that the Commission has made awards closer to the Commonwealth government’s end of the scale than the ACTU’s.
The matters that the AIRC must consider in reaching its decision are set out in section 88B of the Workplace Relations Act, which refers to:
At section 90, the act also provides that the AIRC must have regard to public interest and the state of the economy and the effect any award or order that the Commission is proposing with special regard to the likely effects on employment and inflation. In other words, the Industrial Relations Commission is bound by legislation to consider all of the things the Commonwealth government says it is concerned about. All the Commonwealth government is actually proposing to do is replace an independent umpire with a hand-picked committee to give it the decisions it wants.
In the Safety Net 2005 decision, the Commission found that, on average, the minimum wage had increased less that 4% per year since 1996. Management salaries, combined with their share options, have increased significantly more than this in the same period. Economically then, it is not the safety net, nor the Industrial Relations Commission that is the problem. One is led to the only conclusion available: this is an ideologically driven agenda. Further, it is very un-Australian and has nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with ensuring further prosperity for those already enjoying the greatest share of our country’s prosperity.
Let me debunk some of the statements the Prime Minister made in his 11 July statement when he set out what he alleged his proposed reforms did not do.
Not as such, but they do reduce awards to five allowable matters. The High Court of Australia has already ruled that an award or enterprise bargaining agreement that includes matters outside allowable matters is void. If a condition is not protected by an award or EBA, it is vulnerable to being cast aside by employers. Employers can present an AWA to a prospective employee that offers only what the award protects. The employer can say: ‘Take the job or go; your choice’.
said the Prime Minister. No, but they do reduce union officials visiting workplaces to twice a year. They do not oblige an employer to advise an employee of their right to join a union. It is designed to make it harder for unions to recruit and represent members. It is a deliberate attack on the efficacy of the union movement to remain the voice for workers in this country.
The Prime Minister said:
No, but then they do not have to. The inequality of the bargaining position created by the changes, the threat of not being hired or being dismissed without access to unfair dismissal protection provided by the changes, and the difficulty of consulting the union set up by the changes will do all that.
No, but they establish significant penalties for a union as an organisation, the union official as an individual and any employee who goes on strike or takes industrial action if there is the slightest mistake in the preliminary paper work process that must be completed in order to effect legal industrial action. The threat is there.
No, but then they did not have to. The changes will turn the commission into a paper, toothless tiger with a jurisdiction so remote that 90% of Australians cannot access it.
Well, to that I say: yes, they do, Prime Minister, and you know it. The Commonwealth government attacks our livelihoods, an attack on our ability to earn a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work, and that is an attack on our families. By attacking us now, they attack the future working conditions of our children. There are already some cases in the press reporting that is exactly what is happening now.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the motion by the Minister for Public Employment for a number of reasons, the first of which is to show my constituency of Millner and the general public of the Northern Territory the benefits of voting for the Labor Party in the last election, and they were to have a voice in the protection of workers rights which, unfortunately, have recently been eroded by the Commonwealth government’s attempts to change industrial relations in Australia. Second, I want place on record my support for not only the motion, but for unions and workers’ rights for future generations.
I re-state my support for the union movement. Other speakers today have spoken about the history of the union movement and have put their support on record. I, like many members, have been a union member for nearly my whole working life. This was drummed into me by my parents, both my mother and father, who are staunch union supporters and, of course, my paternal grandfather who was a great believer in the union movement.
I know the member for Arnhem is going to talk about the Wave Hill Walk Off and the importance of it. Through my grandmother, I am a descendant of the Gurindji people. On both sides of my family, the union movement has influenced our existence over the last 100 years in the Northern Territory, particularly because of the union movement’s ability to advocate for indigenous people’s rights to get a fair wage and to vote.
I have often said in this House that my father was 26 years old before the referendum was passed for indigenous people to be allowed to vote in this country. Many people in the Northern Territory could not understand what that would feel like, to be a well-respected member of the community, working and participating in social events in the Northern Territory, yet within the law of Australia not having the right to vote. My father’s and mother’s involvement in the union movement allowed this to occur. They told stories of the old wharf days and the disputes to protect workers’ rights are legendary within my family. This extends to my father’s involvement with the Fire Fighters’ Association and the work that was done with the ACTU when Bob Hawke was its President.
Like many members in this House, we support the right of workers to collectively organise and protect their rights. One of the reasons why people voted for the Martin Labor government was our commitment to portable long service leave. There are hundreds and hundreds of people in the building game who often talked about conditions in the Northern Territory not being comparable to down south. In the past, this has had a huge effect on us recruiting interstate people to work in the Northern Territory. We have seen a boom in the construction game in the last few years under the NT Labor Party and, along with that has come our legislation that has helped with recruitment of workers to the Northern Territory.
The CLP had the option to do this for 26 years, which they never did. The ability to have portable long service leave has been around for a generation down south. The Labor government, for the first time in the Territory’s history, introduced portable long service leave. This was introduced to support the building and construction industry. It is in stark contrast to what the Commonwealth government wants to do. There are benefits to construction workers: because of the transient nature of the industry, we can now recruit workers from Victoria, Queensland, New South Wales, etcetera. It is a policy that has been in place in other jurisdictions for a generation and it has affected the ability of the Territory to attract skilled workers. Our scheme came into effect on 1 July this year.
A board was established to be representative of the industry. At the moment, there do not seem to be any hitches, and it has been welcomed by the industry and the unions. The scheme is based on a levy, which the board sets. Projects over $200 000 of total construction costs come within this scheme. The scheme provides a marketing benefit to the construction industry. An NT Build Office has been established in Stuart Park Central. It is now accepting registration and taking inquiries. Already, I have been reliably informed by the minister’s office that 1200 registrations have been received, and other jurisdictions have confirmed reciprocal rights. This is a fantastic initiative, and it demonstrates what the government can do to protect workers’ rights.
I would like to read the motion into the record again for the benefit of those people to whom I will send a copy of my speech. The Minister for Public Employment has proposed a motion that this Assembly:
(a) express its concern with the Commonwealth government’s industrial relations
legislative agenda;
will be worse off as a result of the Commonwealth’s planned industrial relations legislation;
regarding the proposed legislation;
We have heard from the Minister for Public Employment and the Treasurer. It is disappointing that the Leader of the Opposition’s contribution was quite thin.
This government has continued to be proactive. I would like to talk about what the NT government is doing for the public service, our employees. We have increased their salary by 3%, from the overall 11% over three years package, which was payable this month. This increase was part of a three-year EBA-negotiated agreement with the NT Public Service unions, and follows a 5% increase backdated to August 2004. The current agreement add-ons include: no job losses; death and disability cover; creation of permanent employment for employees on temporary appointment or higher duties for two years; increasing casual loading from 15% to 20%; a work-life balance review; a review of technical and physical streams; professional development allowances; electricity subsidy for remote localities; salary sacrifice; assistance with studies; and other agency-specific issues regarding classifications and rosters. This is in stark contrast to the path of AWAs that are made in secret.
Just after the election I attended a march and heard speakers from the Commonwealth government’s Department of Education and Workplace Relations, DEWR, which is compelling new starters to sign AWAs. We had representatives from this Commonwealth government department speak at this rally, and they were quite disappointed that they were being forced into these agreements.
AWAs have proliferated throughout the Commonwealth Public Service. They account for the largest number of AWAs in the work force, 12 000. AWAs have a detrimental effect on the Commonwealth Public Service. Speaking in July 2005, former senior Commonwealth public servant Patrick Gourley described the application of the Commonwealth government’s industrial relations policies in the public service as ‘a mess’.
The detrimental effects of AWAs include: favouring of larger agencies in the internal bidding for personnel; subversion of promotion systems and the common classification system; a drop from 12% to 6% in staff mobility between agencies in the last five years; an immense increase in the cost and complexity; removing openness and accountability by AWAs being shrouded in secrecy; undermining flexibility and choice by imposing AWAs; undermining the principle of appointment on the basis of merit by making AWAs a condition of employment; and the widening of the gap between women’s and men’s earnings.
The NT government will continue its commitment to collective bargaining for the Northern Territory Public Service.
Finally, part of our election commitment was not to use AWAs. The Martin Labor government gave a firm commitment not to use AWAs in the recent Territory election. That was one of our big policy initiatives, and we made that quite clear not only to the NT Public Service but to the wider community, and we continue our commitment to collective bargaining. This is in stark contrast to the opposition. Last year, the opposition moved a censure motion regarding AWAs. The motion was misguided and continued the obsession with individual bargaining. The Commonwealth government is continuing with an agenda of ramming AWAs down people’s throats, and we have grave concerns at the intention of the Commonwealth government to link funding to the use of AWAs.
We have a mandate not to use AWAs because we took it to the NT people. We overwhelmingly won the last election. The Commonwealth government, on the other hand, did not seek a mandate for the agenda. We heard the Treasurer say that we never heard a word before the last election about the AWAs. The Minister for Public Employment asked the federal Workplace Relations minister where the agenda was discussed prior to the election, and there was no response.
In summary, I thank the minister’s office for providing me with the relevant notes and information. I thank all members who have contributed to this debate. The Australian Labor Party has a tradition of protecting workers’ rights and the right to collectively bargain. Unfortunately, we are seeing an ideological attack on that general principle. People’s rights to organise together as a group will stop individuals being unfairly picked upon and, for those individuals who, for lack of power, are unable to represent themselves adequately, collective representation helps to obtain a fair and just wage. I am proud to be part of the Northern Territory government that continues to ensure that workers in the NT have the right to collectively organise.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I rise to add my comments on this motion. I preface them by saying I do not support the motion. I will explain why I cannot bring myself to support the motion. I would prefer in some respects to not contribute until we have something of substance to debate.
What has occupied the airwaves to date is largely misinformation. People have responded most strongly to the voices of so-called responsible people issuing fright after fright about what possibly may occur and are justifiably afraid because of their trust in the leadership of this country. Is it the case? Do we have legislation to consider?
Isn’t it a fact that the legislation will go to a committee for consideration? That is on the public record. To me, it is a disappointing use of time in this Chamber when I can look around the Northern Territory and see issues of genuine concern to all of us that, really, we should be focusing our efforts on.
This is what started it for me: a short time ago, we had the Minister for Racing, Gaming and Licensing articulating his outrage but appearing to be impotent. I want to demonstrate that there is an inconsistency and a lack of integrity in the way this parliament has approached this issue. It is understandable that people have strong feelings against the decision to grant another takeaway licence, for example, in Darwin’s CBD. Recently, there was very strong feeling on this local issue. What is not understandable is that the responsible minister shares the view. He is similarly outraged, yet declares that he is unable, unfortunately, to do anything about it.
I recall last year the same scenario in Alice Springs when the Liquor Commission gave the okay for a hairdressing salon to serve alcohol. Tragically, the responsible minister stood with the crowd to add his voice to the chorus of complaint, expressed great regret at the outcome, and walked away.
Whilst it is faintly comforting to experience this level of empathy from a senior community representative, it is disturbing and gives rise to the question: is a minister of the Crown devoid of power or unwilling to apply it? Legislation controlling the granting of liquor licences comes under the authority of the Territory parliament and is administered by the responsible minister. This minister can exercise authority in such matters and at times is duty bound to do so.
The point of my comments is this: a similar scene was repeated very recently and is being echoed in this Chamber right now, but it has a bizarre twist. Representatives of unions gathered to express their outrage at the Commonwealth government’s plans to reform industrial relations. The same scene was played out, but this time there was an important difference. This time, the minister is powerless. Industrial relations in the Territory are fully determined by Commonwealth legislation. While the minister momentarily resumed his role as a union secretary and whips the crowd into a frenzy, he neglected to reveal that he has no authority in this matter.
However, when he has the opportunity to act in the best interests of the community that has elected this parliament, he walks away from that responsibility. That is why I find it difficult to get involved in this debate. It is similar to yesterday. Take your job seriously; there are issues in the Northern Territory that need our serious attention. One was raised during Question Time, and that is the quality of constant tenure of teachers in building relationships with our students in classrooms. That is something that should focus our attention rather than to maintain an agenda primarily directed at stirring up concern when we really do not know the substance or the nature of the reforms being proposed.
It takes us back to the GST debate. I have not had time to go through in detail the comments that were made in this Chamber by members of the Labor Party when there was talk of taxation reform, but I do recall that the now Chief Minister spoke in terms of it reducing the income of those who can least afford to pay and how it was not a good thing. There were similar debates in this Chamber of strong opposition to taxation reform. Come the reform, not a peep.
What disturbs me when I listen to the comments that have been uttered in this Chamber is the reinforcement of a class struggle, an increase in the adversarial nature of how our community negotiates difficult things. It is further creating a sense of divide between the terrible boss who wants to destroy and sap the life out of workers, and poor workers, the downtrodden. The language coming from members of the Labor Party seems to reinforce that notion.
I represent many Territorians who share the same experience of working in small business, small enterprises, family concerns. They stand somewhere in the middle. I will not use my time to speak of the great struggles in primary industry, to battle against the power of unions and waterfronts. There is tremendous hurt within the primary industry sector arising from the militant dominance, the uncaring actions of waterfront workers and how they have affected the primary industry. That is something that I have personally been involved in, and it hurt immensely.
The story that you seem to be telling in here is too black and white. It does not recognise we have a story in the middle, people who want to take risks to go into private enterprise, and to work in cooperation with those they employ and, together, share productivity and increased benefits that come from that enterprise. There is a story in the middle, and that is the story being misrepresented.
Do you understand industrial relations? I tell you what: one thing I do understand is relations. We need to build better relations in this country, and a better dialogue between those who work and those who take the risk of enterprise so that, together, we can increase productivity and share the benefits of a stronger and growing economy. We need to develop better relations. The language that is being spoken at the moment is divisive and it is destroying the opportunity for better relationships between those who work and those who take the risk of private enterprise.
The facts speak for themselves. I have an element of trust here. It appears to be devoid from the ideologically-driven comments by members opposite who have already spoken, but the runs are on the board and I come to this proposition with some trust. I have a trust that Australians have the capacity to respond to reform because it is in everyone’s best interest to continue and develop the changes that have occurred in this nation.
These are the runs that are on the board: since 1996, workplace relations reform in Australia has delivered real wage increases of more than 14%; the lowest unemployment levels in almost 30 years; and more than 1.6 million new jobs. If the discussion centres on having a job or not having a job, that is of concern. There have been 1.6 million new jobs, and that is a fundamental improvement of a magnificent level. Seven million Australians are in full-time work, with the lowest level of strikes ever, higher productivity and higher living standards.
Mr Kiely: It is a good system. Why change it?
Mr MILLS: Change is constant. The environment is changing; the option to remain constant is not there. Australians’ living standards depend on the productivity of the workplace, ongoing improvement. What we have seen here is an increase and an improvement, but the ongoing increase in living standards is dependant upon the workplace and it must continue. The national and international climate is changing. We need to be in a different place in five years time. Everyone knows that the world economy is changing and we must respond to it. To remain as we are now is not an option.
What is the aim of this? What is the underlying purpose of this reform? As we hear from members opposite, it is almost as though we are going to reintroduce child slavery. The aim is to enhance living standards through increased productivity; that is the purpose. I do not want to be involved in anything else. I want to see increased productivity and strengthening of the Australian economy for the benefit of Australian families, every one of them. I do not want to see an increase in wealth from one sector to another at the expense and alienation of another. I want to see a general improvement and strengthening. I believe that is the aim of this. I cannot accept that there is malevolent intent, that this is a sinister plan.
It appears to me to be based on economic reality. I support the notion of prosperity and fairness working together. It is possible in the context of good relations that people can negotiate better deals in the workplace so that, together, we can share prosperity in a context of fairness.
Job protection and increased wages can only be achieved if the economy is strong. If the economy - the core of this - is not strong, we do not have a discussion of this nature. We are talking about the increase in jobs, the rise of living standards only afforded by a growing and strong economy. That is the core of this: we are increasing the capacity to pass on a benefit to all Australians. That is what I want to see.
Yes, I am aware of the scaremongering that is out there and that people are concerned about reductions in living standards and people being taken advantage of. To cast it in such simple terms that because I am this side of the argument, I do not mind that sort of stuff happening is absolute rubbish.
As someone who has employed people, taken risks, worked in private enterprise and taken a responsibility for my own actions, I want to see that level of cultural change occur in the Australian workplace. I believe that Australian workers have a capacity to be involved in a greater level in increased productivity in the workplace. I believe that Australian workers are adaptable and resilient. They are, in fact, our greatest asset. I believe in them. I believe what we are talking about is an attitude of mind. It is about initiative, performance and reward all linked together. It is quite a different notion.
The language used in this Chamber and in many articles and media broadcasts does not seem to lift to that possibility, to unleash the potential that is there for increased benefits in the workplace.
What concerns me is the nature of this debate, this idea that workers are going to be disadvantaged, that bosses are going to be enlarged in their capacity to wring the last drop out of workers. I do not know where that comes from unless it comes from a strange place which is recognising that cultural change is in the wind and with that cultural change comes a reduction in power to some who have been accustomed to holding such power: the unions.
This is what disturbs me because underneath, there seems to be this other message that comes through. That message will be fully revealed, I expect, as this debate unfolds. I would like to read an account of an interview that was conducted on the Channel 9 Today show this morning. The interviewer, Karl Stefanovic, asked Treasurer Costello:
Whatever it takes, it is that level that we descend to in such debates that cause great concern.
What are we talking about? We have many commentators looking at our economic record in Australia, seeing how we have improved and asking: ‘What is the next level of reform?’ Some 20 years ago, it was taxation reform. Paul Keating tried it. He was shot down by the ACTU. Finally, it was delivered to the benefit of this government and every other Labor government in every state.
The next level of reform is industrial reform. The Governor of the Reserve Bank said that the biggest thing in this area is industrial relations reform. There must be a lot of things still that can be done.
The OECD speaks the same language. It says to further encourage participation and favour employment, the industrial relations system also needs to be reformed so as to increase the flexibility of the labour market, reduce employment, transaction costs and achieve a closer link between wages and productivity. Access Economics makes similar comments.
I still cannot understand this. I was not raised in the union movement so I do not have that blood running through my veins. I see it as a farmer, trying to understand what this is actually about.
This is what has been proposed and reported. We are not discussing legislation. We are discussing proposals, that are being reported, to establish a Fair Pay Commission to better protect minimum wages, to enshrine minimum conditions in legislation for the first time, to introduce a fair pay and condition standard to better protect workers in the bargaining process, to simplify the agreement-making process at the workplace, to provide modern award protection for those not covered by agreements, to fix Labor’s unfair dismissal laws, and introduce a national system of workplace relations.
Last night after leaving this Chamber, I was watching Question Time in the Commonwealth parliament. In terms of unfair dismissal laws, which were a Keating government experiment, there was a survey of 900 businesses released earlier this week and it provides further evidence of this failed experiment. The survey found that a massive 65% of businesses had experienced or known of speculative unfair dismissal claims by workers. A further 37% said the practice of paying ‘go away’ money occurred regularly, and another 30% said it happened occasionally. Given these facts based on this recent report, it is a wonder that Labor is still unwilling to accept that there is a problem with ‘go away’ money.
We are talking about increased productivity. We are talking about reform that should lead to strengthening our core economy. We are talking, in my view, about better relations in the workplace between employers and employees so that we can unleash the potential as Australians in this great place.
I ask members opposite to hose themselves down a bit. Let us take a deep breath and watch this unfold. I know there is an agenda being delivered through this Chamber by elected members, but let us be fair. Let us watch how this unfolds and see what we are actually responding to. Once that occurs, we can buy in more responsibly. Until then, let us turn our attention with greater determination to issues that really do concern us and are under our domain, such as issues on which the Minister for Racing, Gaming and Licensing appeared impotent. Get on with the job of governing and deal with issues that are of primary concern to the families of the Northern Territory.
Ms McCARTHY (Arnhem): Madam Speaker, we do have something of substance to debate. The minister has given his report on a national meeting of ministers and the federal Workplace Relations Minister that he attended earlier this month regarding the Commonwealth government’s plans on its industrial relations legislation agenda.
He spoke not once, he spoke twice and three times today outlining the clear and decisive action that is being discussed at the Commonwealth level. There are television advertisements by the Commonwealth government that indicate its stance. Yes, forced into doing so because the ACTU was proactive in alerting Australians to the major industrial relations agenda being driven by the Howard government. These are issues of substance.
It is an agenda that required action immediately to stop it from becoming legislation. That is why we are having this debate. That is what debate and discussion is all about. Such is the outrage and disgust at the Howard government’s intentions to dismantle the rights gained by workers in this country in the past 100 years. For those rights, here in the capital of the Northern Territory, more than 2000 people walked the city streets to protest loudly and passionately against the Commonwealth government’s industrial relations legislative agenda. How wonderful it was that those workers chose to walk the streets at the time the Labor government in the Northern Territory was sworn into parliament for a second time since self-government.
The Chief Minister led the march with her fellow Labor ministers and MLAs, united with the people of the Northern Territory. It was the biggest protest Darwin had seen in a very long time - if not the first, but by no means the last. It will not be the last. It was a clear and sincere indication of the concerns held by the average mums and dads in Darwin who worry about their future and those of their children, who worry about the rights gained and the rights that will be whittled away, if not removed entirely, by a Commonwealth government that has become too far removed from the people, a Commonwealth government that is out of touch with the people, a Commonwealth government that looks too closely at the financial gains of opportunities in countries like China and India to see the real needs of people right here in Australia, the human needs, the everyday needs of family life. It has forgotten that any business must have workers who are happy to work in their place of employment, a place of employment where they feel no intimidation from their employer, where the worker feels they have an opportunity to raise their concerns, their issues and be heard without fear of retribution. We know that collective bargaining rose out of the deep-rooted concerns that many employees most of the time confront a power imbalance at work in dealing with their employer.
It is the women in this country who have much to lose. Women have fought long and hard for equality in the workplace, and for employer respect in the value of balancing work and family life. There are 10 women here in the parliament, Madam Speaker, and each one of us has our own stories of the struggles we have had to face in life to be where we are today. We must surely have benefited from hard-won rights over the decades.
Right here in the Northern Territory parliament, we have achieved history because of the number of women in this parliament, a parliament that stands alone, for no other Australian parliament, nor, indeed, international parliament, has achieved the record we did on 18 June 2005.
I know there is no way that I could have continued in my previous place of employment for 16 years without the ability to negotiate, without fear of intimidation, as a member of the Australian Journalists Association, which then became the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance, for that length of time. I had two children during those years of employment and returned to my position after paid maternity leave without fear that it would be ripped from under me because workers’ rights were enshrined in fairness. Fairness is a word the Prime Minister, John Howard, seems to have forgotten. There are statistics that show that women on Australian Workplace Agreements receive 11% less compared with women covered by collective agreements. That is the direction the Howard government is heading.
One does not need statistics to know that if a mum or dad is happy at work, they are more than happy at home because their employer understands that the two can work together, that there does not have to be competing interests on the employee. It is the respect of the person, the responsibilities of caring for a family, which must never be taken for granted. However, it appears the chase for the dollar in this country and overseas, the desire to be competitive and, in John Howard’s words, ‘prosper’ obviously means at the cost of family life.
The Australian Industrial Relations Commission recently brought down a decision in the Family Provisions test case. This is an example of how the Commonwealth government’s attacks on the AIRC can have a detrimental effect on ordinary Territorians. Much of the agenda of the Commonwealth government is to reduce the jurisdiction of the AIRC to virtually nothing. The Full Bench decision was handed down on 8 August. The AIRC’s President, Justice Geoffrey Giudice said the Full Bench had arbitrated a new provision, giving employees the right to request the following variations:
The Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment is looking at the decision to see how the Northern Territory Public Service compares.
Members in this House today have outlined the changes the Howard government wants to implement. My colleague, the member for Brennan, has also gone to great lengths to define the history of the struggle of the early Labor years, and of the unwarranted and unfair attacks by the Commonwealth reforms on the Australian Industrial Relations Commission.
Let me again remind members and, most especially, members of the opposition, the importance of that history. It has been well documented how collective bargaining is viewed as a fundamental human right under international law by the United Nations and the International Labour Organisation. Under these laws, every employee has the right to join a union and to have their wages and conditions collectively negotiated. Under the Howard government, these laws are under serious threat. There is clear evidence to show that collective bargaining is not supported by the Prime Minister and his government.
As minister Burns stated in his address to parliament this morning, the federal Minister for Workplace Relations on 5 August, this month could not assure - and still has not assured - Australians that no worker will be worse off as a result of the upcoming legislation.
Madam Speaker, I support the motion calling on the Prime Minister to give a categorical assurance that no Territory worker will be worse off as a result of the Commonwealth’s planned industrial relations legislation.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, it is unfair to bring this on so quickly, when the Orders of the Day, on the first day we were here, made no mention of it. Today, it is number 2 on the Notice Paper.
It is a very important issue; I am not getting away from that fact. However, to ask members to deal with an issue of such importance so quickly, I believe, is unfair. I imagine members in government would have had a lot more notice that this was coming up and would have had the support of the government to help them with their contributions. They have the backing of the unions. As you know from the web sites, there is plenty of information on the unions’ point of view.
For me to give an in-depth contribution to this debate is very difficult. Some people might say we should not be debating at all, but it has a certain amount of relevance because the Commonwealth government does control industrial relations in the Territory, so it has some relevance. However, it is something we should have been forewarned about a long time ago so we could have done justice to a debate that is important.
Minister, I noticed during Question Time, you said I was not interested. I am interested. My complaint really was not about the content of what we are discussing; I have a problem with what I call ‘repeats’ in Question Time. When I have heard it earlier and it is repeated, that sometimes ruins what Question Time is about. I would much rather hear questions such as the one from the member for Daly, who asked a great question about youth facilities in Katherine - it was a good question - instead of questions that fill the atmosphere with foam, like when you put your finger on the shaving cream. We do not need that. The reason I raised a point of order was because Question Time is important, and the more questions we can ask that are relevant to the people we represent, the better. If that question to you, minister, was not a repeat, I would have been happy to hear it. So, do not get me wrong; I do take an interest in the subject.
I will run through how I see this issue, which may vary from what other people think. There has been much talk about the new industrial relations bill that the Commonwealth government intends to introduce later this year. One of the difficulties of discussing this bill is that we do not have legislation before us; we have to go on media releases and statements. For instance, the Commonwealth government released Our plan for a modern workplace, and will use that as the basis of my contribution today. Of course, there has been a lot of debate and, until we see the legislation, a lot of this is what we presume will happen, but we do not have the details.
I have worked on both sides of the fence - in fact, three sides of the fence, you might say. I have been a boss, I have been an employee, and I have been a self-employed worker for many years. So in some small way, I am able to recognise some of the difficulties that are faced from both the employee’s and the employer’s perspective.
What I will be looking at in this legislation is to see what the changes will mean not only for the worker, but also for the worker’s family. The family is the key to our society. It is the basis of our society and it is under enormous pressure today, as can been seen from the high rate of divorce and break-ups. There are probably many reasons for that, but I have very little doubt that work for either one or both partners plays a significant role. Mum and dad are always working.
The price of a home today is starting to get out of reach for many families; working long hours to pay for the mortgage becomes the main focus of our lives. When we are talking about employers, sometimes the government has to realise it is an employer in a bigger sense. It is an indirect employer because it is decisions that government makes that can affect workers indirectly. The reason I mention that is, as an indirect employer, it can have a lot to do with the availability and price of housing through cheaper loans and cheaper land. That way, it can help the worker and the family.
I always find it strange when the Acting Chief Minister rises, with all due respect to the member for Port of Darwin, in praise of the Real Estate Institute for higher prices for housing and units, but coming from a party that represents the worker, it is an anomaly because the higher the price of houses, the harder it is for people to be able to buy their own house.
Mr Henderson: What about HomeNorth?
Mr WOOD: Yes, I have heard that argument before, but it is limited to $240 000, as you know, member for Wanguri …
Ms Sacilotto: $260 000.
Mr WOOD: $260 000, but you would be lucky, very lucky, to find a place in the rural area for that price. What I am saying is that whilst you might cheer that the price is going up, whilst you might say that you can get a loan, the bigger the loan, the longer you have to pay. The reason you have to get a bigger loan is because the price of housing is going up all the time. You might be able to get the money, but you will be paying for the rest of your life. All I am saying is …
Mr Henderson: What about the wealth that is being generated for the family and future generations?
Mr WOOD: Well, you are paying a mortgage all of your life. I am not saying you should not have an open market, but the government has a role to play in providing cheaper housing through cheaper land, those options. I do not think there is enough of that. I raise that as a point because we can talk about better pay and conditions, but if you cannot afford to buy a house, you cannot achieve a fundamental aim of Australian society, and we need to protect that.
I would like to talk about AWAs. I am interested to hear from the other side what they think, too. AWAs and contracts do not seem much different. Many of our government people in the higher echelons are on a contract for so many years. AWAs are basically a contract. So whilst the government says it does not like AWAs, to a large extent you support them because your higher people in the public service are on contracts. I can tell you now that I am not a fan of contracts. I am not saying people do not have the right; they do. I would be concerned about AWAs that do not have a foundation, a bottom line that you cannot go below.
I believe that people have the right to have a contract. I do believe people have the right to have an AWA, as long as they have a choice to be on the award as well and as long as they are free to do it. I have heard people concerned saying that you have a young person turn up for work for the first time and the boss says: ‘We all have AWAs so you sign there’. Certainly, they need protection. We need to make sure people, if they want to sign up for an AWA, understand it. Perhaps they have to take it away for someone else to have a look at so they have time to look at what they are doing. So no matter whether it is a contract, an AWA or the award, I am a supporter of the choice as long as there is a bottom line that says you cannot go below that.
One of the reasons I do not like contracts is because I do not know how people expect to get a mortgage on a house if you know you have a five year contract. Years ago, if you had a job in the public service, you knew you probably had it for life. It was the same with many businesses. You went to the bank and they said: ‘Who do you have a job with?’, and you could say: ‘I am working with the government’, or ‘I have a job with Coles or Woolies,’ and the bank would say: ‘Okay, you get a loan’. Banks are not going to be too happy if you have a three-year contract. They are just going to say: ‘Sorry, that is not long enough for us to guarantee that you can get a loan’. Then you have to go and get mum and dad to give you the deposit; that is the problem today. Many people have to get other people to help them buy the house. That is one of the disadvantages of contracts.
Mr Kiely: That is why we have the partnerships on HomeNorth.
Mr WOOD: That is very good, yes, I am not denying that, but there are cases where it is difficult. I have run into people who cannot find the money and they have had to go and ask mum and dad or someone else. Why do you see ads in the paper saying: ‘If you cannot get a loan, please ring us and we will get you the loan’? There is difficulty in getting loans at times, and it is harder when you are on a contract.
I worry about contracts because many people have to work extra hours. The contract might be for a 40-hour week, but they probably work a 60-hour week. The contract might contain a clause that says they have to do exactly what the boss says. In some cases, they have to work longer hours because they fear they will lose their job. Contracts at times can mean that a family man or woman is not home as much as they should be, and that is why whatever changes are being looked at in the industrial relations bills, we should emphasise that the family needs to be protected.
When it comes to the unfair dismissal laws, I have some concerns because they are not going to apply to employers who employ fewer than 100 workers. Most small businesses in the Northern Territory, except for some of the mining companies and maybe the big retail companies, do not employ anywhere near 100 people. Are these workers less worthy of protection from unfair dismissal? Does that mean that the bread winners in the family who work for a small business are less entitled to protection than someone who works for a large company? In the case of the Territory, as I said, would it not be the case that most people in private industry work for employers who employ fewer than 100 people? It would seem to me that the family of a worker in a small business could be at more risk of financial hardship because there are no unfair dismissal rights.
I note that the Western Australian Nationals have raised the same concern. I will read from a media clip from the ABC about the Western Australian Nationals on industrial relations changes:
I read later on, of course, that they do not support the full sale of Telstra. I might put on record now that I do not support the full sale of Telstra. It should stay as it is, but I digress.
While I have talked about unfair dismissal, there is another side to the coin, especially in the Territory. There needs to be a more streamlined and practical approach that will give employers the right to sack workers who are not doing the right thing. That has been one of the concerns for small business; they sometimes get tangled up in this process where you have someone who, for instance, does not turn up for work every day on time and they need to get rid of that person. They have a lot of difficulty trying to get rid of that person, and it can be very frustrating.
Sometimes when we talk about the worker, and this is important, we forget that the boss is a worker who, in many cases in small business, works long hours, who takes the financial stress and risk, who has to fill out all the BAS statements and all the red tape and has to spend a lot of time away from his or her family. Sometimes when they employ a worker, they expect a similar commitment. It is sad that when we talk about ‘the worker’ from a Labor perspective, it tends to be ‘the employee’, but in the case of a lot of people, like the farmer, the self-employed person, or the small business that might only have a part-time worker during the week, we forget that they are workers, and they work long hours. They do not belong to a union. They do not have a union; they might have a business association of some sort, but they do not have the protection of a union.
Sometimes that boss, who is working hard, when he employs someone, expects that person to put in the same effort – the long hours and all that sort of stuff – and if they do not, there is a risk they get the sack because they will say: ‘You are not doing as much of the work I want’. Then, certainly, the employee needs protection, and that is the balance we have to find. I do not know whether that balance is here, but I do become concerned when I read from the Commonwealth government’s Our plan for a modern workplace paper. Besides saying it will exempt businesses that employ up to 100 employees from unfair dismissal laws, it says that the government will continue to protect all employees by providing a remedy for unlawful termination which prohibits dismissal for discriminatory grounds such as race, colour, sex, union membership, pregnancy and so on. The problem I have with that is that it does not protect a person if they are unfairly dismissed. For example: ‘He did not turn up today so I am going to sack him’, and the fact is that he had a flat tyre. It does not cover that. That is a major fault with this. It should not matter, as the Western Australian Nationals have said, whether you are employing one or 1000. Each person is important, each person has a family and they should not be dismissed unfairly.
They appear to be going to change the time that the unfair dismissal laws can apply. It exists at the moment at three months. They want to extend that to six months. I am concerned about that. Does that mean an employer can employ someone for three months and then sack them and there is no redress because the unfair dismissal laws will not apply? If you take this law and extend that to six months, you can discharge that person within six months without any protection. I am concerned about that. However, I need to see the legislation, and that is one of the difficulties in trying to debate this today. It is very difficult to say that will be the case.
I read what the Commonwealth government has produced; I have also read what the Labor Party produced, and how am I to say which is true? One, I have not seen the legislation, and, two, I do not have the proof because there are claims like communities will suffer, pay packets will be cut, the lowest paid will get less, extra pay for extra hours will go, flexible hours will be the norm, benefits will be lower. A lot of those things already apply in the Northern Territory, anyway. I have heard people respond and say that is not true.
I have the Labor Party and I have the Liberal Party’s view. I want to see the legislation. Until I see the legislation, it is going to be very hard to discuss this thoroughly.
There has been much said about the Australian pay commission, but I have not had time to look at this in detail. The minister dismissed the idea of the commission. His argument seemed more based on the theory that the system was all right before, therefore the government must be up to something tricky. Maybe. From my little bit of knowledge, and I may be wrong, we are trying to copy a process that is used in England. I gather we are using the same model that they use in England. The Liberal government here has borrowed that model and brought it to Australia. I would be interested in knowing whether there is something wrong with the British version. I do not know.
Dr Burns: Well, it was Mrs Thatcher!
Mr WOOD: There has been a Labour government there for a long time. If it was bad …
Dr Burns: That is why they had to bring it in.
Mr WOOD: If the Labour government thought it was crook, you would think they would have scrapped it by now.
There is also the Australian Fair Pay and Conditions Standards and the role of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission that needs to be looked at. Again, with such short notice, it is very difficult to give you a meaningful reply to those sorts of things.
I have concerns about where working conditions are going, but I also have concerns about small business because those people work long hours, they also have families and they need some protection as well.
I am concerned that with all these free trade agreements, for instance, where we get cheap imports into our country, such as fruit and vegetables from China, that to compete, we have to lower our standard of living by lowering wages and working longer hours. I do not agree with bringing vegetables and fruit in from other countries, saying it is a level playing field when you know the people who have worked to produce those goods got $1 a day or something, and we have to compete when we are paying $100 a day. I do not think that is fair. I do not believe we should be lowering our wages to try to become more competitive with a country that pays terrible wages.
I am concerned that less time is given to the family because we have to work longer hours. I know the Deputy Chief Minister will go crook at me when I talk about the eight-hour day and the eight-hour recreation and the eight-hours sleep; the principle behind it was to protect the family and worker, to give the worker adequate time to earn a living and adequate time with the family. Regardless whether it is eight, eight, eight, the principle should still apply.
One thing I was pleased to see is that Kevin Andrews is supporting a Senate inquiry into the legislation. He said in a door-stop …
Mr Henderson: The Prime Minister knocked it on the head.
Mr WOOD: Yes, he might have, but I will get to that. Don’t you worry about that. Don’t you worry about that, member for Wanguri.
Kevin Andrews said: ‘We will probably set up a Senate inquiry. This is something one would expect will be a Senate inquiry.’ I agree, good idea; that is what the Senate is for. If the Prime Minister is pouring cold water on it, I disagree; that is where this legislation should go because if you put it to a Senate inquiry, we might be able to hear about some of the issues we have raised. If they travel around the country, as committees do, that would be good. I support an inquiry.
I have 10 seconds. When I grew up …
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, I move an extension of time of 10 minutes to allow the member to conclude his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I know we keep church and state separate, but I grew up in a Catholic school, and one thing that always stayed in my mind was an encyclical by Pope Leo XIII in 1891 …
Mr Kiely: I knew you would quote that!
Mr WOOD: I knew you knew I would. It must have been important; I have known it all my life. I pulled it off the web site today. The principles on which it was written are relevant, regardless of whether you are Christian or Callithumpian. He said, at that time, that these are the things we should consider: the recognition of human dignity; the protection of basic economic and political rights including the right to a just wage and to organise associations or unions to defend just claims; the right to private property; the rights of labour over capital; the just organisation of society for the common good.
Those principles still apply. There may be some variations because I presume the economy in 1891 was slightly different from the economy of 2005. However, those principles remain important and still apply to all workers. I include in my definition of ‘workers’ employers, especially small businesses. As I said before, do not leave them out of the equation when you talk about workers.
The member for Goyder would know how many small businesses are in Coolalinga. They employ very few people and work long hours; they are workers. As much as I know you come from the union perspective of workers, as a parliament, we should be there to protect all workers. In the end, we need to make sure that whatever legislation goes through, which we do not have a lot of control over, the family is protected because it is under so much pressure today. I heard the member for Blain talking about productivity. Productivity is fine, but productivity is not the end of the world. If it forces workers to work longer hours and be away from their families longer, then I do not think productivity should be the main goal.
We need to find a balance. If we can get legislation through that will find that balance so we are a competitive country but, at the same time, recognise the importance of looking after our workers and their families, it will be good.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I rise to support the Minister for Public Employment’s motion on the Commonwealth government’s undermining of Territorians’ pay and working conditions.
As a 15 year-old, I was riding home on a tram from Melbourne one day and went past the local CES office. I went into the office and asked: ‘Are there any apprenticeships for fitters and turners going in the area?’ This was over in Collingwood, and they said: ‘Yes’. They sent me down to Gregory Steel, a knife factory in Johnson Street. I walked in there as just over a 15 year-old, I was 15 in August and this was at Christmas time. I spoke to the boss, spoke to the foreman and was told: ‘Okay, come back on Monday. You are starting as a first year apprentice in fitting and turning on probation’. I kicked off my working life as a 15 year-old in a factory in a fitting and turning apprenticeship, much like the member for Drysdale was a fitter and turner. I also share a bit of working history with my colleague, the member for Wanguri.
I was earning the grand sum of $17 a week. Might I say, Madam Speaker, $2 of that went on tax. I had a take-home pay of $15. I remember that quite well. Now, I got home and my mother, who was also in the metal trades as a process worker in another factory, asked me about my wage and I said: ‘Well, mum, I got 15 bucks’, and she immediately hit me $5 for board, but she did not mind about the wage because I was protected by the award. I did not have to negotiate my wage. It was set in concrete: this is what a first year apprentice fitter and turner gets, $17. That is all I had to do to make sure I was getting paid the right amount, the fair amount for the work I was putting in as a trainee.
Here we are many, many years later and you have to wonder what it is like for a 15 year-old today entering the work force. It is not good in all cases. Have a look at South Australia. On 5 August, the South Australian Industrial Relations Court ordered a Baker’s Delight franchise to pay $1438.34 to a 15-year old worker, who was a Year 10 student who had been engaged in 2003, to make up for an under-payment under an Australian Workplace Agreement. These are the things that the Commonwealth government is saying are the best, most manageable, productive gain contracts that we should be putting our workers on.
Dr Burns: Best thing since sliced bread!
Mr KIELY: Best thing since sliced bread, according to the Commonwealth government and that is what they want us all on. They want to get off the collective bargaining. What did the judge say in his summing up of that case? Justice Peter McCusker, in the matter of Yurong Holdings Pty Ltd v Renella [2005] SAIRC 60, said:
These are the other AWAs in that workplace:
He dismissed the appeal, which was brought by the employer against the decision of a magistrate.
Here was a 15-year old going to work in a business and – bang! - 25% under: ‘Sign this AWA’. Let us have a look at some of the clauses of the AWA that this 15-year old was required to sign.
There are many people in our work force who do not have the ability to bargain, who will go for a job and they, too, will be faced with that. There is no point saying it is not going to happen. It does, and there are 50 other people on AWAs with this employer who will probably be facing the same sort of thing. This is the current situation and you have to question what the future will be if this is the practice that is going on now.
No, there is no legislation before Parliament in Canberra saying exactly what the changes are, but we hear one story from the federal Treasurer, who is corrected by the Prime Minister. No one really knows what is going on. I think the federal Treasurer is trying to tell the truth, but the Prime Minister realises what a can of worms it is and is trying to hose it down.
This is the judgment of a court; it is a public document. Everyone can have a look at it. This is the future for our workers under the IR changes proposed by the Commonwealth government.
The member for Blain was saying this is becoming adversarial and what he is hearing in the debate is the workers over here and the bosses over there, and you have to remember the bosses have a stake in this, too, and let us not be so divisive. The IR changes are not all that bad and let us give it a go.
These changes are bad for small business. I thank the minister for his opening remarks on the motion because my ears pricked up when he said this, and I started wondering where this is leading to. I will take you along on a trip shortly. The minister said:
Madam Speaker, I have friends in the building game and they bid for tenders. Time and again, I run into them and ask how they went on a tender and they say they were unsuccessful because they were undercut. So you comment on it being a bit tough and maybe the price was a bit high, but that is business, that is how it is and that is the competitive nature. Let me give you this scenario: John the builder tenders for a subdivision to roof 20-odd houses on the basis that he has five people working for him and has to pay them the award rate of $20 hour – I am using nice round figures for convenience sake. Along comes Bill the builder who says he will undercut the tender and go in by a couple of thousand less. He can undercut on the award, get his workers onto an AWA and instead of paying these blokes $20 an hour, he can slip them in at $15, whatever he wants. He is going to undercut it, and he picks up the tender because he is the lowest price. The developer who wants those roofs on takes Bill because he has the best price.
So the bloke who is charging $18 an hour has to screw down the people who are working for him on the AWA to $15 an hour. They are on-site, they are working, they are not happy because their wages have been decreased. They are hunting around looking for other opportunities for work, and they will get it. They will find work elsewhere. Then what happens? You have a subcontractor on-site who can no longer finish the job, the job is held up, the price goes up, he goes out of business, he has debts, and he takes other small businesses, his suppliers, with him. We see this now in the building industry and we will see it more in the future because of the undercutting that will flow through these AWAs. This is how business will operate, how these small contractors will try to stay in business.
To say: ‘Look, it is the worker only who is going suffer from this’, is not correct; it is going to be the small business operators that will suffer. The only organisations that are going to benefit out of the proposed industrial relations changes being mooted by the Howard Liberal government is big business, the big end of town. They will be the ones. The worker on the wages, the small businessman, the small employer of five or 10 people, they, too, will feel the brunt of these changes. They will go out of business, and they will take many a supplier with them. There will be a knock-on effect through the whole of the economy. Do not say that we are running union line, and only trying to protect a few workers because that is not the case.
This goes to the crux of the economy. That is what it is all about. These IR changes are ideologically-based; they are not grounded in any true economic rationale. It is something that the Prime Minister, as my colleague, the member for Brennan, mentioned, has flagged since 1984. We know that the Prime Minister is not going to be around for ever and a day. He wants to leave his mark. He has been looking at this since 1984 and now he has the opportunity. He has the power and the will to do it. It is because of his arrogance on this issue that he will be the greatest destructive force that this country has seen on the economic and industrial relations front for many, many years - probably about 70 or 80 years.
He is not the first conservative prime minister to have a go at the working conditions of the working man. If you have a look at our history, in 1926, Bruce tried to abolish the Arbitration Commission. Might I mention that 1926 and 1928 was when the recent innovation of a 44-hour week had been introduced into the country and, even then, the conservatives were up in arms, saying this is too much of a deal for the working class man. It was not a matter of eight hours, eight hours, eight hours. It was less than that, member for Nelson. We have been struggling as a community to make our lifestyle choices, to make this a fair and better community, all the way back.
Back in 1928, what happened? The Labor opposition of the day wanted to have a look at this legislation that was being mooted, and Bruce would not show it to them. He told them categorically: ‘You are not going to get a look at this until the second reading speech’. That sounds familiar, doesn’t it? There was the same arrogance then, with an attack on workers’ rights, as what is happening now. That was 1928! The same ideology. They believe we should wind back the clock in the national interest, and let us have a go at it.
The same tactics as are being applied now did not work, and the biggest shock of all for Bruce was that he was rolled in parliament. He went to the people on a double dissolution and he lost his seat in a landslide win to the ALP. That is where this is heading. This will tear apart the Liberal Party.
Mr Mills: You reckon?
Mr KIELY: Yes, the Nationals are onto it. You do not get the church groups coming and the conservative elements of the community coming out against this sort of legislation if it is not wrong.
The member for Nelson was talking about the obligations of government to family, and he is right. I do not often agree with this fellow over here, as people would know, but he is right on this. It is a fundamental go at all the families that is going to wind the industrial relations clock in this country all the way back to the 1890s.
We heard the member for Nelson talk about Pope Leo in 1891. When William Guthrie Spence became the foundation President of the Amalgamated Shearers’ Union, he ran up against the same thing. The squattocracy was giving him heaps when he had the temerity to band the workers together to try to get a fair deal. All the workers were asking for was dignity and to be treated better than the cattle and sheep that the squattocracy owned. That is what this is about, make no mistake. We are going back to the bad old days with this legislation. It is ideologically driven and has no basis in taking the community forward.
You can see the similarities of this attack on with the attack 70 years ago in 1928 on the 44-hour week. It has its roots right back in 1891, when we saw the emergence of an egalitarian society, which is a great thing and has made this country the great country it is today and the envy of the majority of the peoples of the world. Let us keep it that way.
Out of 1891, there came many a class hero. One of the best and strongest voices for the people of the day was a bloke called Henry Lawson. I would like to wind up my contribution today …
Mr Wood interjecting.
Mr KIELY: If we can hear from Pope Leo, we certainly can hear about an icon of Australian culture, Henry Lawson, who wrote The Ballad of 1891:
The price of wool was falling in 1891
Mr HENDERSON (Business and Economic Development): Madam Speaker, I contribute tonight on behalf of the Health Minister who had a prepared statement to put to the House on how these proposed changes could impact in the health system across the Northern Territory. Before I read the minister’s statement, I have some comments.
There are a couple of fundamental issues here. Members have spoken about one, which is that this is one of the most profound and far-reaching proposed changes, and I accept the fact that we have not seen the detail of the legislation yet, to the workplace that Australia has seen in 100 years.
The Prime Minister has a couple of hurdles here. One, he does not have a mandate for this. The Leader of the Opposition said in her contribution that there was some mention in the election campaign that there would be this significant change to the industrial relations system. I challenge the Leader of the Opposition to present the statements or policy position of the Liberal Party in the election campaign that said they were going to strip back the powers of the Industrial Relations Commission to set minimum awards, and the other proposed changes we are yet to see in legislation. There was no debate on this during the federal election campaign. On such profound changes to the Australian workplace, which will affect every worker in Australia, the Prime Minister has no mandate.
The second issue is why we need to do it. There is a great saying: ‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’. Peter Costello has been Treasurer for nine years, coming on for 10 years, and if you add up all his statements during that time - surplus budgets, the economy is booming, we are a leading economy in the world, we survived the Asian financial crisis, we have companies at the top end of town making record profits, we have the lowest unemployment rates that Australia has seen for many years, decades even - there is a fundamental test for the Prime Minister and the Liberal-National Coalition. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
Australians are a pretty laconic lot and do not normally fight back unless someone has come along to take something from them. The Prime Minister and the Liberal-National Party Coalition, which has a majority in the Senate for the first time in 27 years, with no mandate, want to put in place a new system that is going to take conditions of employment of working people in Australia. Australians are going to fight back.
It is the height of arrogance of the Prime Minister and the Liberal-National Party Coalition, which achieved a majority in the Senate in their own right at the last election, to ram through these proposed charges - I accept the comments that we have not seen the detail yet – but there is no doubt that the fundamentals, as outlined in the Prime Minister’s speech, will see a significant change in the industrial relations climate in Australia.
Why would you try to do that at a time when we have a very robust, booming economy around Australia, with record levels of employment in Australia, with record profits unless it was purely for an ideological commitment that the Prime Minister has? Now, that is fine; that is what politics is all about. Much of it is about ideology and a contest of ideas, but there has been no contest or debate on this issue in an election climate. I believe that Australians are going to rise up on these issues. The union movement, the Labor Party, everyone who is interested in fairness, equity, and balance in our industrial relation system will rise up. That is why this debate is ahead of the legislation.
As people have said, the coalition of groups that are coming together to say: ‘Hey, this looks unfair. This is going to alter the balance of power in the employer-employee relationship and there is no mandate for this’. Church groups have been coming out strongly against the proposals that are generically being flagged. There is going to be a significant blue in the Australian community over these proposed changes. The Prime Minister has no mandate, he has no reason, and fundamentally, these proposed reforms are going to affect every Australian working family and, ultimately, the economy.
That is the challenge and the debate is going to happen over the coming months. The Prime Minister and his Coalition have the capacity to take whatever legislation they want through the parliament and it is going to be interesting to see - and we had the member for Brennan talking about the wets and drys within the Liberal Party - how strongly this Coalition is going to stick together.
I hope that sanity will prevail and if the Prime Minister does want to put these reforms in place, let’s hope they can be delayed long enough in the election cycle so he does take them to the Australian people. If the Australian people give him a mandate for it, I suppose that is fair enough, but I do not think they would.
Mr HENDERSON (for and on behalf of the Minister for Health)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I now move to the statement by my colleague the Health minister:
Try negotiating AWAs with 1650 nurses! You would be bogged down in administration for years.
In a situation of national and international shortage of doctors, this government has been highly successful in ensuring
that we are competitive in recruiting and retaining these health professionals. Currently, we have over 90% of our hospital
doctor positions filled.
The current EBA, covering approximately 350 medical officers, took effect from July 2003. Since 2000, the medical officers
have received an increase of 21% at 4+3+3+5+3+3. The union involved is the Australian Salaried Medical Officers Federation.
The current EBA provides some key benefits such as:
I don’t know how you get 0.6 of a dentist, but there you go; they are the numbers I have.
That account of the EBA deals with some of the flexibility that has been negotiated into those EBA arrangements for our
health professionals. We hear the Prime Minister, but we do not hear much of Kevin Andrews and he has responsibility as
the minister for this, but he has been pretty much muzzled.
I noticed that the guru that the opposition brought up from Liberal Party headquarters to help them in the election campaign, one
Ian Henke, has now been hand-picked by the Prime Minister and put into Andrews’ office to coordinate the $20m campaign to try
to sell this to Australians. A lot of the talk is about …
Mr Stirling: He’d want to go better than he went here, wouldn’t he?
Mr HENDERSON: Or in Western Australia. There is some hope yet if Mr Ian Henke is coordinating the campaign on this because he does not have a great track record to date.
The issue of flexibility is there within the current EBA framework for employers and employees to either negotiate directly at the workplace level, or through a union, to try to get those flexibilities that the business needs into those agreements.
What this will be, what these AWAs are all about, what this attack on collective bargaining is about is dog eat dog. It is who will work for the least conditions and for the least amount of pay that some employers will foist on them. It won’t be all employers. As Business minister, I get around the community, and most businesses operate ethically and fairly, and they realise that the best value they have in their business is generated by the people who work for them.
Most business people do the right thing, but there are some out there who do not. Those people will use this as an opportunity to sell their jobs to the people who will bid the lowest in terms of the wages they are prepared to accept and the conditions they are prepared to work under, and it is those people at the bottom of the labour market who have the least capacity, the fewest skills to negotiate with those employers who will come off worse.
It is really going to hurt kids in families because there is going to be less coming into the home and less for everyone involved. This is a direct attack on the rights of Australians. The Prime Minister has no mandate for this, the government has no mandate for this, and there is no compelling reason in terms of Australia’s economic performance or economic future that has been articulated to date to explain why we need to attack the conditions of working people in Australia.
Madam Speaker, I support the motion.
Dr BURNS (Public Employment): Madam Speaker, first I compliment all speakers on this motion.
It has been an interesting debate and there has been a wide range of opinions and elements of the debate that warrant reply. I will try to do that with each of the speakers.
The Leader of the Opposition talked about the unions and the Labor Party running a scare campaign and basically said: ‘There is no legislation before the Commonwealth parliament. You are being a little bit premature by bringing this motion into this parliament’. We have the Prime Ministerial statement, delivered in May, in which he outlined the core elements of what he is proposing. We have had certain public statements since then, and some of them have been contradictory, but at the bottom of it all, the Commonwealth government is on the record saying that they want to follow the Western Australian model, the so-called second wave, and I demonstrated today that the Western Australian experience has led to lower wages at both ends of the spectrum, particularly for those workers who are disadvantaged and have very little bargaining power, they are the most disadvantaged and the most vulnerable.
I do not believe it is premature for us to bring this motion. There is enough on the record, historically, as the member for Brennan pointed out, and more contemporaneously for us to see what the intent of the Commonwealth government is in this area.
The members for Araluen and Blain talked about development since 1996 in terms of real growth in wages, low unemployment and new jobs, and that is true, but it only reinforces the argument from this side: why would you want to change it? Why would you want to change it if there has been prosperity in Australia, if there has been wages growth, low unemployment, economic prosperity, why do you want to try to fix this thing? That was the very question that Kevin Andrews could not answer when we asked him, very politely, in Melbourne: ‘Why do you want to change it? Tell us what the problem is and we will work together to try to fix it’. I do not think that is really an argument.
The member for Araluen said that there would be higher productivity under this agenda of the Commonwealth government. The evidence by researchers shows that there is no higher productivity under this sort of industrial relations agenda with AWAs. In fact, the evidence and the papers that I have seen point to just the opposite at individual, collective and national levels. When you compare Australia and New Zealand, when New Zealand went down this path their productivity plateaued; Australia’s productivity went up. That was the first time there had been a significant disparity between the productivity of Australia and New Zealand for a long time - since before the 1950s. I do not think productivity is an argument, either.
In fact, I have been advised that industries with the most AWAs have had the lowest increase in productivity. There is a long history of research indicating a strong link between unions and productivity. Research also indicates that managers think that individual contracts improve worker commitment, whereas workers feel blackmailed into signing AWAs. They are some of the evidence and issues surrounding AWAs and productivity.
The member for Araluen also quoted from the article by Paul Kelly. I take on board what Kelly said about some of these issues. However, there were some things that caught my eye in Kelly’s article in The Australian. His opening paragraph was this:
They were some of the comments Paul Kelly made in The Australian. He also said that electoral support for economic reform is insipid, with 60% opposing industrial changes. They were AC Nielsen July figures. He also pointed to the fact that Prime Minister Howard, in previous elections, has run on a ‘no losers’ platform. He said:
That was the quote that I used a couple of times today. It is interesting that neither John Howard nor Kevin Andrews will sign on the dotted line to give assurances that no worker will be worse off under his industrial relations reforms.
The member for Araluen talked about mortgages and the premier team in Canberra and how they are delivering on promises in relation to mortgages and that, basically, this was an important element. I remind her of the story that I was told about the bus driver in Western Australia who lost his house because of the IR reforms in that state.
The member for Nhulunbuy contrasted the fact that, coming into the Territory election, there was ample evidence that we were quite front and centre about our position on industrial relations matters. I have a whole series of media releases from before, during and quite soon after the election. We have been quite clear all of the way through on our position, but you cannot say the same for the Commonwealth government. They were not front and centre on their industrial relations agenda during the recent federal election. It is not good enough to point to the fact that they have legislation on the books that was knocked back by the Senate and this is their position. They never put it as a position in the federal election campaign.
The member for Nhulunbuy also made a very good point about AWAs. He said: ‘If they are so good, how come only 2.4% of the Australian work force has gone onto AWAs since 1996?’ I do not think they are very good. I do not think that Australian workers think they are very good, either.
The member for Brennan gave a very good speech, and amply demonstrated his experience in the industrial relations arena and his grasp on conservative party politics. He amply demonstrated that this has been an ideological battle in the Liberal Party since 1983. I will come back to this ideological battle.
The member for Millner detailed Northern Territory Public Service awards and conditions. That was further amplified by the member for Wanguri when he was talking about some of the EBAs, particularly in the health area, that have occurred over the last few years.
There is a whole range of conditions that have been built into those awards to make it more attractive, particularly for health staff to move to the Northern Territory, to encourage them to come here and to retain them. You have to contrast that against the five core conditions that the Prime Minister outlined in his Prime Ministerial statement. Everything apart from those five core conditions, which are pretty basic, is up for grabs. The five core elements are: a minimum rate of pay $12.75 per hour; eight days sick leave; four weeks annual leave; unpaid parental leave; and weekly working hours. Apart from those five key elements, everything is up for grabs.
Madam Speaker, the member for Blain was up-front. He said he does not support the motion. I am not sure whether other members of the opposition do or do not support the motion. He said he needed to have something of substance before the Commonwealth parliament before he could make decisions. He also said that he was somewhat comforted that it was going to go to a Senate committee for consideration. He also talked a lot about trust. He talked about trust in terms of politics …
Mr Stirling: Like the nuclear dump?
Dr BURNS: Well, I was going to raise that. With that, there was a committee somewhere that actually removed all the locations, other than the Territory, and put three Territory names in there. If you have a majority in the Senate, a Senate committee could be seen as a rubber stamp for your agenda. There is a bit of mistrust out there about the agenda and I certainly do not share the member for Blain’s trust of the Commonwealth government in relation to this matter.
He said that things had become divisive in terms of polarising the workers and unions and the bosses. I think that you will find many bosses around the place in small business will not support this industrial relations agenda because it introduces a whole element of chaos and insecurity in there. The Industrial Relations Commission and the Industrial Relations system have served Australia well for the past 105 years, and has brought a lot of certainty to both workers and those in business.
I have covered some of the areas that he raised in terms of productivity and increases in wages and unemployment and jobs. He rounded off by talking about people having union blood in their veins and said that he came from a farming background. I should not have to remind the member for Blain that his professional life was as a teacher. I find it quite unusual for someone who has been in the teaching profession never to have been a member of an education union.
Mr Mills: Never was.
Dr BURNS: Never was! I find that unusual, but that is your choice, member for Blain. You talked about the need to move forward, that we are living in an outdated system and we need to move forward into a brave new world. From my perspective, member for Blain, what John Howard and the Commonwealth government is proposing is taking us right back a century before we had an industrial relations system and where workers were at the mercy of bosses to a large degree. I do not really see what we are trying to protect here as anything else but protecting a fair and just system.
I was very impressed by the member for Arnhem. She talked about the need for this in terms of what is happening in the community and this motion before parliament as action that is required to stop legislation coming into place. It was talked about down there in Melbourne: not only will the states battle this out if necessary in the High Court in terms of the constitutional basis of what the Commonwealth is doing trying to bring industrial relations reform in on the back of corporations powers, but also we will fight it out in the forum of public opinion.
It is important to be very active to stop the negative parts of this legislation coming into force. She also pointed to the support in the general community that was evidenced a few weeks ago, a very large demonstration on the streets of Darwin, which was very heartening.
The member for Arnhem talked about the long fight that women in the workplace have had for equality. She talked about her membership of the Australian Journalists Association and how the union, through awards, safeguarded her position when she went away and had children. She was able to come back to her job. That is very important security for women in terms of their career and family.
She also pointed to the fact that women who are on AWAs earn 11% less than those on enterprise or collective agreements. She emphasised the importance of family. She also emphasised the fact that collective bargaining is a right under international treaties, as is the right to join the union. Along with the member for Arnhem, I agree that these things are under threat.
The member for Nelson talked about AWAs being no different from contracts. He said there are a few government employees who are on AWAs or contracts, particularly at the higher levels. He may very well be very well right, but the majority of Northern Territory government employees are on enterprise agreements and it is a very important part of the process and the relationship of government with its employees. That would be put at risk through the Commonwealth government’s industrial relation agenda.
He said it is okay if someone chooses an AWA, but there should be a choice to be on an award. I do not think that has been the experience. It certainly was not the experience of the Year 10 student the member for Sanderson referred to. Her case certainly indicates that employers will twist employees’ arms, particularly those who are a bit vulnerable, to sign up to AWAs.
He rightly pointed to the furphy that the Commonwealth government is running about dismissals and unfair dismissals. They are saying if your business has fewer than 100 employees, you cannot have unfair dismissal, but if you have 100, you can. What is the difference between employee 99 and employee 101? If it is unfair, it is unfair.
The member for Nelson also pointed to the fact that basically there is a difference between unfair dismissal and unlawful dismissal. In the advertising on which the Commonwealth government has already embarked, they muddy the water and allow people to believe that unlawful dismissal is equivalent to unfair dismissal. They are saying that they are not going to do away with unlawful dismissal, but the fact is that they are trying to white ant unfair dismissal.
I will jump over to the member for Wanguri who spoke on behalf of the member for Stuart as Health minister. He detailed, as I said before, the importance of EBAs to recruit and retain staff within the health system. The member for Wanguri also highlighted the fact that this is a fundamental issue. This whole issue of industrial relations is a fundamental issue. He also talked about the absence of anything front and centre in the federal election campaign and said the Commonwealth government has no mandate in this matter. He questioned the reasons for doing this and said that Australians will fight back on this issue. So they will, Madam Speaker.
Turning, finally, to the comments by the member for Sanderson, which I thought were very good. He talked about his own experience as a 15 year-old caught under an award and contrasted that with the exploitation of a 15 year-old by Baker’s Delight in South Australia who was getting 25% less than she should have. He highlighted in the judgment that was handed down that the AWA sought to cut wages.
Madam Speaker, that is what this is all about: AWAs under the Howard government agenda seek to cut wages and conditions of workers. The experience of that 15-year-old, if this comes in to law, is going to be so widespread. It is going to happen not only to 15 year-olds, but people right throughout the work force.
The member for Sanderson also talked about the need for certainty for small business. He talked about ideology, the ideology of the Liberal Party versus family and dignity, and that has been a bit of a theme here. Getting back to the article by Paul Kelly, he said:
Towards his final paragraph, he said:
I would add social justice to that sentence because this is all about social justice. It was interesting for me to read a newspaper article quite soon after the election that gave a profile of the member for Araluen. Right at the bottom, it listed interests. I was amazed to see the member for Araluen cite social justice as an interest. Madam Speaker, social justice is not an interest; it is a core value.
Mr KIELY: Madam Speaker, I move that the minister be granted an extension of time to conclude his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, it is certainly a core value of the Labor Party, which grew out of the workers movement and has put social justice at the very core of its being, at the very core of its policies.
I contrast that with the Liberal Party. History has been discussed today. Reading through Don Watson’s biography of Paul Keating, he deals with some of the happenings in the 1980s and early 1990s within the Liberal Party. Basically, at that stage, the Liberal Party had Fightback under which the Coalition proposed a $3 per hour wage for 15 to 18 year-olds, and a weekly rate for workers that was only $8.10 more than the dole. They were running on the premise at that stage that unemployment was a product of high wages. The reasons have changed a bit in the decade that has gone, but they always find a reason to do this sort of thing. It did not go down very well. Quoting from Don Watson’s book:
Social justice lies at the heart of Labor values. We are about family, we are about protecting those who are the most vulnerable, who are the most disadvantaged. I believe these proposals by the Liberal Party undermine the whole system of industrial relations. Far from giving security to workers, this regime is going to throw people out of work and inflict stress upon the families.
I will be saddened if members opposite do not support the motion because the core of what we are asking here is in part (b). It says we call upon the Prime Minister to give a categorical assurance that no Northern Territory worker will be worse off as a result of the Commonwealth’s planned industrial relations legislation.
Madam Speaker, this is a very important issue. It has been debated throughout the morning and this afternoon. It is a crucial issue and I believe we need to be very clear where we stand on it. I commend the motion to the House.
Motion agreed to.
BATCHELOR INSTITUTE OF INDIGENOUS TERTIARY EDUCATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 8)
Continued from 30 June 2005.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, now we attend to affairs pertaining to the authority of this parliament.
This legislation is supported by opposition. It indicates procedural change to facilitate greater accountability at the managerial level of Batchelor Institute. Our reading of it leads us to support it without concern.
However, whilst we are speaking of Batchelor Institute, I wish to add to comments that have been made in the past in the previous session of parliament. My comments are not directly about this legislation, however, they concern the future of Batchelor Institute. There have been comments, unofficial and official, formal and informal, from members opposite and their counterparts in the Commonwealth parliament and, I might add, by the federal minister for Education. They all seem to be of one accord in respect of Batchelor Institute becoming a part of Charles Darwin University.
Maybe I am the only one to express great caution at the way in which that issue is addressed for the very reason that if that is the direction the institute should go, it should be a decision made by the institute. I am concerned by the nature of the comments that have being made both formally and informally. They indicate that the decision is largely made and it forces Batchelor Institute to deliver an agenda over which they have no direct ownership. That is a concern to me …
Mr Stirling: What comment? Who by? Substantiate your remarks!
Mr MILLS: The minister, whilst he is commenting, should be able to alleviate any concerns that have been aired at the institute that the decision to become part of CDU is the institute’s alone and not achieved by coercion or any outside influence overriding the decision of that community.
That said, the opposition supports the bill.
Mr NATT (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I would like to reinforce the importance of this bill to all honourable members.
The Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training has defined percentage increases in the Commonwealth Grant Scheme’s funding for higher education institutions. These increases are dependant on reforms, compliance and government protocols for not only the Northern Territory, but other states and territories. The changes to this bill reinforce and ensure Bachelor Institute can access maximum Commonwealth funding.
Failure to pass this amendment bill would mean that the Batchelor Institute would not receive the nominated 5% increase in funding for 2006, which equates to approximately $400 000.
The changes are clear. They address governance matters and go to: the expertise of members of the council; explicit duties of the members of council; vacation of office if a member is otherwise disqualified as a director of a company; powers relating to the removal of members; appropriate standards as well as accounting for governance duties of the members of the council; penalties; and breaches.
Adherence to national standards in the regulation of governance of higher education institutions such as the Batchelor Institute is of significant importance. The Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education is an important institution, and it plays a major role in providing indigenous Territorians with education and training opportunities. It is, therefore, important that this government’s protocols are in line with preferred national practice in the Higher Education sector. I urge honourable members to support this bill.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I thank the members for Blain and Drysdale for their supportive comments in relation to this legislation.
Frankly, I was surprised by the member for Blain’s comments that Batchelor Institute will become a part of Charles Darwin University, yet he does not say where this comment was made. He does not say by whom it was made, where he heard it or exactly what the comment was. Henny Penny! The sky is falling in!
We hear this time and time again from the member for Blain. Did he hear it on the bus on the way in this morning, or what?
Mr Mills: Just relax. I will find it for you, do not worry.
Mr STIRLING: Tell us who said it. Was the federal minister, Brendan Nelson? Was it a federal public servant from DEST?
Mr Mills: No.
Mr STIRLING: Was it this government? No, it was not. Was it this member, this minister or any part of the Northern Territory government? No, it was not.
He comes in with these unsubstantiated rubbish allegations, Madam Speaker, and has it flowed out there that somehow the Northern Territory government may be supporting the takeover or amalgamation of BIITE by CDU. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Mr Mills: Good to hear it. I did hear it.
Mr STIRLING: At a recent meeting with the Chairman of the Batchelor Council, Rosemary Kunoth-Monks, and the interim Director, John Ingram, we were very encouraged indeed by the route that Batchelor Institute is taking in terms of it getting back to basics, getting back to delivering rural and remote education, particularly around health worker and teacher education, that they delivered so well for so many years, unfortunately, so many years ago. It is true that they lost steam and direction over the last five or 10 years or thereabouts.
We were very impressed with the honest approach, with the job that they know they have to do, the task before them. They have been working, as has Charles Darwin University, on a memorandum of agreement between the two institutions, and that is exactly as it should be.
Both institutions cross each other’s areas in terms of delivering to remote communities. Both institutions cross paths in relation to the sorts of services and the types of educational programs that they deliver. It is infinitely proper that they should have a memorandum of understanding and agreement between the two institutions where those paths collide and what each is doing. I have heard both sides, both Charles Darwin University and Batchelor, in relation to this agreement.
The member for Blain cannot come in here and say: ‘Oh, I’ve heard a few comments. I’ve heard a bit of commentary around that BIITE’s going to become a part of CDU’. Who said it? Did you make it up? You come in here to muckrake like you normally do. You never substantiate your allegations. You never tell us who said it, so I say it is a lie. I say it is a lie because you will not even say where you heard it.
Dr LIM: A point of order, Madam Speaker.
Mr STIRLING: Well, what substance is there to it?
Dr LIM: The minister is now using the word ‘lies’. Surely, Madam Speaker, he should withdraw that.
Madam SPEAKER: Acting Chief Minister, could you please withdraw?
Mr STIRLING: I will withdraw it is a lie. I will assume it is an untruth, like much of the rubbish the member for Blain brings here to debate.
I thank the member for Drysdale for his support.
Dr LIM: A point of order, Madam Speaker.
Mr STIRLING: Those idiotic comments notwithstanding, I thank the member for Blain …
Madam SPEAKER: Acting Chief Minister, cease. What is your point of order?
Dr LIM: Madam Speaker …
Madam SPEAKER: Hold on.
Mr STIRLING: … for his support for the bill.
Dr LIM: You determined before that words such as lie or untruth in the appropriate context are not allowed. Whether he used the word lie or untruth, he is using it in the same context. I think he should withdraw that, too.
Madam SPEAKER: The Acting Chief Minister did withdraw. He withdrew.
Dr LIM: But not the word ‘untruth’.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that the bill be now read a second time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 30 June 2005.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker …
Ms Carney: Do not upset him, Millsy. Don’t upset him.
Mr MILLS: No, I will not.
Mr Stirling: Well, tell the truth! Tell the truth. That is I ask.
Mr MILLS: I am telling the truth, minister, but nonetheless, I did say I would provide the information to your satisfaction. Just calm down.
Similarly, this legislation is supported, of course. It fulfils the same parameters as the previous bill and it has the full support of opposition.
However, I will take this opportunity to reflect on the comments that have been made publicly in the Northern Territory News in the last couple of days regarding the Charles Darwin University.
I agree with the comments made both in the Letters to the Editor and in the Editorial today; it is a very important institution to the Northern Territory. The Territory is a community at the earliest stages of its development, unlike other states. This is why this institution must be afforded very careful support: because of its key role in the development of our community.
However, when continued reports of an unfavourable nature are circulated and substantiated, I am sure you would be satisfied with that, minister. We must be very careful how we respond to them. I do not believe it is satisfactory to provide excuses and reasons as to why it is suffering adverse reporting. We need to go, as a maturing community, to the next stage and to identify exactly what is the problem so that we can then appropriately address it.
That is the stage we must move to quickly because very important institutions like this, in this climate, can be damaged quite seriously and quickly. Therefore, I place a request on the minister of the Crown who carries responsibility for education in the Northern Territory to ensure that there is swift action to strengthen the core of this institution, to respond appropriately in a hands-on and active way to ensure that the adverse reporting goes beyond a report and an explanation and perhaps excuse-making to identification of the core issue and an appropriate response - not for the sake of how the minister or this government appears in the short term, but for the sake of the longer term. It is a very fragile institution. Just as the Territory is developing, it requires a very careful response.
Madam Speaker, we support the legislation.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Blain for his supportive comments.
In relation to his concerns, and they are concerns that the government and I share around the current media reporting of Charles Darwin University and the fact that it rated 38th of 38 universities, I need to make clear where this came from, the whole idea of the survey and the Commonwealth government’s views about it.
It came out of a major finding of a review of higher education in 2002, which culminated in the Our Universities: Backing Australia’s Future package. Although teaching was recognised as a core activity of all higher education institutions, current Commonwealth funding, internal staff promotion practices and institutional prestige tended to reinforce the importance of research performance rather than teaching performance. If that is true, there is a problem for a start.
It is clear that the Commonwealth government believes that rewards and incentives for excellence in learning and teaching will promote the overall quality of the higher education sector, enabling excellence in learning and teaching to be placed alongside delivery of research. That is certainly as it should be in terms of contribution to Australia’s collective knowledge systems.
So a Learning and Teaching Performance Fund was established by the Commonwealth government. This was funding of around $54m in 2006, increasing to $82m in 2007 and $109m in 2008 as part of this renewed focus on teaching quality in Australian universities. This Learning and Teaching Performance Fund is designed to fund those institutions that best demonstrate excellence in learning and teaching. Allocation of funds is in two stages: stage 1 is to determine an institution’s eligibility for funds; and stage 2 is to assess institutional performance in learning and teaching.
I have said quite clearly that we share the concern spelt out by the member for Blain because it does put up negative perceptions around the university. They are unfair at heart but, nonetheless, they are out there and, if they remained unaddressed and ignored, they will serve to damage the institution in the longer term.
I have already arranged to meet with the Vice-Chancellor of Charles Darwin University at the earliest possible time so that I fully understand how these results were arrived at but, most importantly, to find out from the Vice-Chancellor what she and the senior management team at the Charles Darwin University and the university itself is doing about improving its teaching and learning.
We know CDU is the most regional university in Australia. We know it has always faced significant challenges, including, of course, having to have the ability to deliver services right across the length and breadth of the Northern Territory with a dispersed population. However, the Commonwealth government needs to be providing it with adequate funding, not using a survey such as this - which is challengeable in its own right, but I do not want to ignore what the survey is saying - to further disadvantage those institutions in Australia that need the most assistance. It would be akin to me saying: ‘Here is a remote indigenous school that is absolutely failing in its outcomes and in teaching and learning. Let us withdraw the teachers; let us cut the funding to that school’. That is what Brendan Nelson is about here. That is what the Commonwealth government is about.
We look at a school that is struggling in terms of outcomes. We try to analyse why the outcomes are so deficient, and we put in whatever support and resources we can to strengthen the outcomes of that school. We do not cut its funding and we do not try to close it because that is the end line of where the current Commonwealth government’s train of thought would go.
The Commonwealth government and Brendan Nelson, very early on in our term of government at the beginning of 2002, agreed to work with the Northern Territory government to establish Charles Darwin University, to reform the governance arrangements applying to Charles Darwin University and generally overhaul higher education in the Northern Territory. We went into a cooperative arrangement with Brendan Nelson and the Commonwealth government on the basis that there would be increased funding for Charles Darwin University as the reforms rolled through. This legislation today is another step in that roll of reform that we committed to Brendan Nelson very early in 2002.
Not only did we not see the increased funding, it now appears that the Commonwealth government is trying to further pull the rug out from underneath Charles Darwin University in the middle of the process. We were encouraged to go into this partnership with the Commonwealth government from that very point of view. We recognised the university needed change anyway, but to do so with the agreement and in partnership with the Commonwealth government, which would result in a greater funding, was exactly the path that we wanted to go down.
It is probable that CDU has been cut out of any additional funding for crucial teaching and learning development initiatives under what we would see as quite an elitist funding model because it is quite clear that the top ones on the list, the ones that are seen to have performed the best, will get the extra funding. We provide, at Territory government level, around $6.5m for higher education to Charles Darwin University. That is proportionally the biggest contribution of any state or territory government into their higher education system.
The Commonwealth government needs to support all of the 38 universities in Australia, and Charles Darwin University, as I have said, because of its location, is the most regional institution in Australia. The population it serves and the mix of students has its own set of challenges and difficulties. We ought to be getting much stronger support from the federal minister and from the Commonwealth government than we are at the moment.
I will meet with the Vice-Chancellor, as I said, at the earliest opportunity and will work through these issues. She is a strong fighter in her own right, and she is a dedicated fighter for Charles Darwin University. That is an asset in itself. However, we will work with her as hard as we can to find extra funding if nothing else is forthcoming from the Commonwealth government. I have said that publicly; the Vice-Chancellor and the council understand that. I look forward to that meeting with her because there clearly is a job in terms of the university and its teaching and learning. It is not something that is going to be turned around overnight, but steps do have to be taken.
I agree with the editorial only so far as excuses will not wash. There does have to be a job of work undertaken here. The Vice-Chancellor is not trying to do that; she is trying to put a context around the study and exactly what it means. However, all of the information is not yet in. The publication of that list is premature; there is a whole range of data still to come in against that survey.
Nonetheless, the Vice-Chancellor is not running from this; she is prepared to take it on. I look forward to the meeting with her to work out where and how we, as the government, can support that further analysis of teaching and learning within the university, try to understand what has to be done and facilitate that process as far as we can.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training)(by leave): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Ms LAWRIE (Family and Community Services): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I rise to reflect on the substantial progress made by this government to improve mental health services for Territorians, to acknowledge the job is far from complete, and to inform the Assembly of important new initiatives my department will implement over the coming year.
Mental health is a high priority in our five-year framework for Building Healthier Communities. Gaps in the mental health service system are being addressed. This government is undertaking broad-ranging reform of the mental health sector, and is backing that reform with substantial increases in funding. Although significant improvements have been made during this government’s first term, there is still more to do - service gaps remain, and further investment and effort are required to meet the needs of our community.
Tonight, I reaffirm this government’s commitment to continue our comprehensive upgrade of the mental health system, to implement new and improved services and, importantly, to accelerate the legislative reform that is essential to our goal of an improved mental health service for all Territorians.
Before I turn to the specific issues facing the Territory, I would like to make some comments on events that have received recent media attention. The media has brought into sharp focus the tragic death of a young Territory man with schizophrenia. Members will be aware that this death has been a subject of a coronial inquiry, and we expect shortly to receive the coroner’s findings in relation to this tragedy. Our service systems must learn from such incidents. Without waiting for the coroner’s findings, I have asked my department to take immediate action to address the issues raised during the inquiry to ensure that we are providing the best possible care, and that our legislative framework supports the reforms we need to make.
Since becoming Minister for Family and Community Services, I have met with mental health workers in both the government and non-government sector, in both Darwin and Alice Springs. I visited the Alice Springs inpatient unit in early August, and spent some hours last week viewing the facilities and talking with staff at the Top End Mental Health Inpatient Unit, more commonly known as Cowdy and Joan Ridley wards. Work to improve these units has been under way for sometime and extensive modifications to Cowdy ward have recently been completed. These renovations changed the layout of some areas and will reduce the risk of individuals leaving the ward without medical approval. No patients have left the Joan Ridley unit without medical approval. Further improvements will be made this financial year and, in addition, improvements to the Joan Ridley unit have also been included in this year’s minor new works budget.
An Inpatient Task Force has been established to address any staffing and clinical practice issues relating to the operation of the unit. The task force will have representation from senior medical and nursing staff, inpatient nursing staff and the Australian Nursing Federation.
The Chief Executive of my department will be meeting with the Commissioner for Police to facilitate ongoing collaboration between the two departments and to address the issues raised in the recent coronial. I have also asked the department to prioritise the drafting of amendments to the Mental Health and Related Services Act and the Adult Guardianship Act to better address the crucial balance between the care of individuals and the provision of information to family and carers.
When the coroner hands down his findings, I have directed my department to immediately report to me on any problems or gaps that are identified, with concrete strategies to address these concerns.
The issue of mental health will continue to feature prominently in public debate as the Senate Select Committee into Mental Health Services holds hearings around Australia over the next few months. This government will continue to implement our reforms, ensuring that we move forward with the community and our important partnerships to improve our mental health system. I will also ensure that we seize the momentum and opportunities that this process provides to focus and guide our reforms.
I would like to take a moment to highlight statistics regarding the prevalence of mental health problems internationally and in the Territory. I hope members will agree they underline the magnitude of the problem and reinforce the need to maintain a focus on improving mental wellbeing.
According to the World Health Organisation, mental disorders account for an estimated 11% of the disease burden of our population and make up five of the 10 leading causes of disability. In Australia, the prevalence of mental illness is high: approximately one in five or 18%, of adults will experience a mental illness in any given 12 month period. Of these, only 38% seek assistance. About one in seven children and adolescents will experience behavioural or emotional problems over a six month period. About one in every 100 people will develop schizophrenia, and up to two in every 100 will develop bipolar disorder.
To restate the key statistic: about 20 in every 100 people, one in five, will experience some form of mental health problem at some time in their lives. This high prevalence of mental health problems means that it is likely that people with a mental illness live in every community, on every street, and in every apartment block throughout our community.
Most Australians, whether directly or indirectly, as a carer or family member, will be affected by mental illness. The high prevalence of mental illness results in a substantial burden for the community. In Australia, mental illness is ranked third only behind heart disease and cancer in its contribution to the total burden of disease. Depression and anxiety account for over half of this burden. Research by our department found that mental health accounts for 14.5% of the total burden of disease and injury in the Territory, ranked second only to cardiovascular disease, which accounts for 14.9%. Intentional injury accounts for an additional 4.9%.
Although accurate prevalence rates for Aboriginal Territorians are not currently available, it is generally accepted that the incidence of mental health problems is higher in Aboriginal communities. Aboriginal people are over- represented in the mental health system in terms of the number of people receiving mental health community and inpatient services relative to their proportion of population.
Territory data collected from services since 2000 indicates: 38% of all people assisted by Community Mental Health Services are Aboriginal, 10% above the populated proportion of the 28%; and 42% of admissions to mental health inpatient facilities are Aboriginal, 14% above the population proportion.
People with serious mental health problems experience high rates of physical illness, substance misuse, homelessness and abuse, and have a shorter life expectancy that the general population. The potential implications of findings such as these for the health and wellbeing of Territorians and a provision of health and community services are substantial and require careful consideration.
Providing comprehensive mental health services in the face of growing demand is problematic worldwide, and is no less difficult or complex here in the Territory. We have the same issues of increasing demand and increasing costs; we have the same concerns regarding our ongoing ability to attract, recruit and retain specialist services.
However, we also have, I am pleased to say, an extremely dynamic work force in both the government and non-government sectors, which is rising to the challenge and is strongly committed to ongoing service improvement. This government’s commitment to improving mental health service delivery across the Territory was demonstrated initially by more than doubling the mental health budget from $13.5m in 2001-02 to $28.9m in 2005-06. Under this government, staff numbers have increased in the government and the non-government sectors, including our remote areas. This includes 24 new positions, and picking up the funding for eight positions that were previously funded by the Commonwealth government.
The Territory mental health service system has three distinct but inter-related components: specialist inpatient services, such as the Top End and Central Australian Inpatient Units; community-based services provided by our public health system; and support and rehabilitation services provided by non-government agencies. These services function in an integrated way working together to provide continuity of care between the hospital and the community while providing the support that is needed by a person with a mental health-related disability.
The priority over the last four years has been the urgent need to provide a greater range of services in the community, and it is to this end we have been investing in our non-government organisations. Since 2003-04, we have increased the proportion of money invested in the non-government sector from 5.5% to approximately 10%. This is forecast to increase to approximately 11.5% in 2006-07. Investment in our NGOs not only improves access to support and rehabilitation services in the community, an important end in itself, it has the effect of reducing pressure on our inpatient beds, something that I will outline in more detail later in this statement.
We have also targeted new funding to strengthen the capacity of specialist clinic services, including child and adolescent services, and improve access to assessment and treatment services for people living in rural and remote areas of the Territory. Child and adolescent services have been increased to include additional nursing, allied health and psychiatrist positions and the commencement of a visiting service to regional centres. Service coverage to rural and remote communities has been enhanced by establishing additional clinical and Aboriginal mental health worker positions and increasing the frequency of mental health service visits to rural and remote communities. Visiting psychiatrist services to remote communities have also been introduced.
Our first term also saw a focus on improving the safety and quality of mental health services, including the implementation of improved policies and procedures around clinical risk management and discharge care coordination. The Top End Mental Health Service achieved accreditation in February 2004 for the first time and is preparing for reassessment in 2006.
The Central Australian Mental Health Service completed a self-assessment and will undergo its first organisation-wide assessment this November. Staff are to be commended for their commitment to improving the safety and quality of the services they provide and the environment in which they work.
The quality of mental health service delivery is also being enhanced through the effort of the Consumer Outcomes Measurement Embedding Team, or COMET, initiative. COMET is an NT-wide initiative that forms part of a concerted national effort to routinely measure and improve outcomes for mental health consumers. While our first term investment in mental health resulted in significant improvements in the range and quality of services, we acknowledge that further reforms and expansion of services are required.
An additional $5.5m has been committed over the next three years to 2007-08. In 2001-02, expenditure on mental health in the Northern Territory was $13.5m. The budget estimate for 2005-06 is $28.8m. During our tenure, per capita expenditure on mental health services in the Northern Territory has increased from $89 in 2002-03 to $129 in 2004-05, and is expected to reach an estimated $144 in 2005-06.
In addition to the immediate responses to the recent coronial I have outlined tonight, my implementation plan for the next 12 months will focus on six key priorities:
Experience with the Tiwi Mental Health Program shows that by combining traditional Aboriginal and specialist mental health skills and using local networks, Mental Health Services have been demystified and made more accessible. There is wide agreement amongst stakeholders that an integrated solution is the most effective approach in indigenous communities.
I do not intend to detail all of these initiatives here tonight, but I would like to expand on three important initiatives in the implementation plan:
The first of these initiatives is aimed at broadening the range of community-based care options for clients of mental health services and supporting these clients outside of inpatient facilities.
Limited access to appropriate community care throughout the Northern Territory places substantial pressure on families and communities. Despite the best efforts of frontline staff, the inability of services to support a person outside of hospital at times leads to admission to acute inpatient facilities.
The Territory has 32 acute mental health beds - 26 in the Top End and six in Central Australia - which equates to 16 acute beds per 100 000 people compared with a national average of 19.9 beds per 100 000. The Territory is currently the only jurisdiction with no community-based beds with 24-hour support. The national average for such beds is 11.6 per 100 000 people. The Territory would have sufficient acute beds if only patients who needed acute care occupied these beds. This can only occur when there are appropriate supported accommodation options in the community.
I am pleased to inform the Assembly that $1.8m allocated in the 2005-06 Budget - $1.2m in capital and $600 000 for operating costs, increasing to $1.1m recurrent from 2006-07 - will establish new community-based residential services in Darwin and Alice Springs. These new services will create an additional 14 beds - eight in Darwin and six in Alice Springs - and provide 24-hour step-up or step-down support for those who temporarily cannot be cared for in their own homes. These services will complement the individual care package trials currently under way in Darwin and Alice Springs. It is anticipated that these services will assist in reducing demand for inpatient beds, providing an alternative to long hospital stays. They will also allow us to intervene earlier in an acute episode, or facilitate early discharge. The services will be of particular assistance to those from rural and remote communities.
The proposed model will feature two distinct components: a clinical component provided by existing mental health services, and a more intensive 24-hour support component provided by a non-government service provider. The proposed service will operate with a recovery focus. Research confirms that even people seriously affected by mental illness can and do recover to live productive lives in their community. However, they must be given every opportunity to do so, and require substantial understanding and support. These new residential services, with the associated individual care packages in Darwin and Alice Springs, expand the range of community care options for mental health service consumers and their families.
A further priority under the implementation plan is the need to reform Territory legislation, including amendments to the Mental Health and Related Services Act and the Adult Guardianship Act.
Extensive community consultation regarding proposed amendments to the acts occurred in 2004, and the department is currently finalising drafting instructions for Parliamentary Counsel. Once drafting is complete, I have directed the department to circulate the amendments to stakeholders for final comment prior to consideration by Cabinet and introduction to the Legislative Assembly.
The proposed amendments will improve the functioning of the legislation in a number of important areas, and will assist in clarifying: the roles, rights and responsibilities of guardians and carers; the application of the act in regional centres and remote areas of the Territory, including the use of Community Management Orders; police powers under the acts; and the capacity to facilitate cross-border agreements.
At times, it is necessary to involuntarily detain people in the secure environment of a hospital or closed ward such as the Joan Ridley unit for assessment and treatment. Among other things, it is the Mental Health Act that sets out the process and basis for making this decision. It strives to balance complex and often competing interests, people’s human rights, the need to provide appropriate treatment, a responsibility to provide care and protection, and a responsibility to safeguard both consumers and the community. It is a difficult balance and we must ensure we get it right.
The third initiative on which I would like to elaborate is suicide prevention. It is of great concern to government that statistics continue to indicate a rising trend in suicide rates for the NT, a rate that continues to be the highest in Australia. The most influential factor in rising suicide rates in the NT has been the increasing incidence of suicide amongst the Territory’s Aboriginal population. This rise has occurred alongside an increasing incidence of depression, self-harm, anxiety, violence and substance abuse.
Statistics diminish the impact and reality of a sudden and unexpected death. Behind each of the numbers is a person. They are our families, our friends, our neighbours and our work colleagues. Suicide is a complex issue related to a range of factors: mental health and substance abuse problems; family issues; unemployment; cultural identity; involvement in the criminal justice system; access to education; and poverty.
Just as there is a range of risk factors, there is a range of strategies that must be used to prevent suicide. They need to be whole-of-government and community approaches. They must support action at all levels and for all ages. They must focus on everything from activities that strengthen individual resilience and community capacity through to interventions for people at high risk.
In 2005-06, additional and ongoing funding of $250 000 will be allocated to enhance suicide prevention initiatives in the NT. A dedicated suicide prevention coordinator will be recruited to progress implementation of the NT’s Strategic Framework for Suicide Prevention. The framework, a first for the Territory, was launched in October 2003 and is based on a whole-of-government and community approach, supports action across all levels of government and takes into account the unique circumstances in the Territory. Work over the next 12 months will focus on joint planning of programs and policies across government departments and community organisations that focus on life promotion and suicide prevention.
I would like to conclude this statement by emphasising that while a strong service system equipped to respond to a rising prevalence of mental health problems is essential, we should not lose sight of the need to pay close attention to promoting wellbeing in our community and, wherever possible, to preventing mental illness. Mental health is not simply the absence of mental illness. A key element of any comprehensive mental health approach is emphasising the importance of emotional wellbeing.
In addition to the mental health promotion benefits that will flow from the increased funding for suicide prevention I spoke of earlier, there are a number of other innovative mental health promotion activities taking place over the coming months, which I would like to outline.
Children of parents with mental illness are a vulnerable group within our community who require our increased attention and support. Next week, workshops are being held in Darwin and Alice Springs for professionals working with parents who have a mental illness, and their children. The workshops are designed to introduce participants to some key national resources that have been developed and can be used when working with individuals with mental illness who are also parents. These workshops will be held in regional areas later in the year.
NT Carers has been funded this year to facilitate a series of Resilience Workshops for children of parents with mental illness in a caring role. Workshops will be held in Darwin, Alice Springs and Katherine over the next 12 months.
During National Mental Health Week, held annually in October, a series of activities and events will be held across the Territory to raise awareness of mental health issues. Last year, the newly formed NT Mental Health Coalition was funded to coordinate a series of activities and regional events to take place throughout the week. Planning for this year’s Mental Health Week, to be held from 10 to 15 October, is now well under way.
Mental Health Week provides an opportunity for us all to consider the circumstances of individuals with a mental illness and their families, and to participate in activities being held in our community which seek to demystify mental illness, de-stigmatise the mentally ill, and promote the mental health and emotional wellbeing of all Territorians. The week also provides an opportunity for all of us to take time to think about our own mental health. As community leaders, I urge you all to take the time to participate in Mental Health Week.
Finally, I pay tribute to my predecessors, the members for Nightcliff and Arafura, for their vision in identifying mental health as a priority, and to previous Cabinets for backing this vision with substantial new funding. I am privileged to have the important responsibility of continuing and building on these reforms in our second term of government.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Deputy Speaker, I compliment the minister for raising this issue and making some good remarks within her statement. There are some very clear and useful initiatives in the statement, and I look forward to following these initiatives closely to ensure that they are delivered.
I am not doing this as a back-handed way of criticising the minister, but I did write to her on 18 July seeking a briefing on Family and Community Services. To date it has not occurred. I think arrangements were made last week for the briefing to occur this Friday. Two days before it happens, we have a ministerial statement, so one has to respond almost blind, as it were.
I wish to advise the House that I used to work in a psychiatric hospital many years ago, back in the 1960s in fact. It was in Claremont in Western Australia. After my medical graduation and imposed graduate training, I did psychiatric training in South Australia and continued to provide psychiatric services in my practice until my retirement from medical practice quite a few years ago now.
I was a bit disappointed that I was not accorded a briefing before parliamentary sittings occurred. It would have prepared me much better to respond to such a global statement.
The minister reaffirmed her government’s commitment to mental health. I heard that from the previous minister and the minister before her. I am a little disappointed that with four years of Labor government, I do not see huge progress, but four years of Labor neglect in mental health. I will make some points to demonstrate where things have gone wrong. As recently as a week or two ago, there were reports in Northern Territory and national papers about mentally ill people not receiving the care they deserve.
In the 1960s and 1970s, mentally ill people were almost incarcerated in psychiatric hospitals, some of them in what are called lock-down facilities. They were managed within those hospital confines. Then there was a huge change in philosophy about how we deal with mentally ill people. Psychiatric hospitals were shut down all over the country and many of these people who were once institutionalised were left to fend for themselves.
As the years have progressed, many of these patients have passed away for many reasons, from natural causes to suicide, the commission of crimes and facing the wrath of police or threatening bodily harm to others and suffering the consequences of that.
New generations of mentally ill people have come through. They do not have many in-hospital type services they can access. They are out there in the public, seeking help where they can, managing the best they can and mostly with family support, but if they have no family, they are on their own.
Many of us as members of parliament have come across such people. We call them street people, we call them all sorts of names, people who come to our offices sometimes to seek assistance, sometimes we offer assistance, other times we lock the doors on them. I know that happens because I have seen it happen in several electorate offices. These are the people who need help. The first focus that we must have as a government is to provide good, effective, supportive outpatient services. Without those, these people are going to struggle forever.
Let me come to some of the comments made by the minister. She talked about wanting her department to address the issues about Cowdy and Joan Ridley wards at Royal Darwin Hospital. Obviously, these changes are not adequate because it has been commented upon by the people who work in the unit. This article in the NT News on 4 August, less than two weeks ago, says one mental patient a week is escaping from the ward. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure you have seen this article. It was written by Suellen Hinde, the health reporter. She said that more than one involuntary patient a week runs away from Darwin’s mental health ward, and that was presented at the coronial inquest. The constable who normally works in that ward said, and I quote from the article in the paper:
If we have people in there who need our care, who need sometimes to be under close supervision, we need to have a more secure system. The minister talked about renovations; the constable said the reception area was now 40 metres from the front door, and that would still make it difficult to see any patients escaping or absconding. Somewhere, something has gone wrong with the design of the renovations. The minister needs to have a closer look. She told us that she inspected the premises, but obviously she did not look at it from a user’s point of view, the users being the staff. The staff need to be asked: how do we improve the ward system so that your work can be made easier, so that you can provide adequate care for the patients?
As you know, our psychiatric services, from medical staff through to nursing staff and health workers, are very stretched. The numbers are inadequate. Previous ministers have spoken about generally wanting to recruit more, and it would be interesting to hear from the minister - she has not told us; it was not in this report - how well the staff recruitment has gone in the last four years of this government. We need to know how many people are in the system who will service the patients that we have.
If you look at Cowdy ward and the hospitals in Alice Springs and Darwin, we have overcrowding in our wards. I know there are patients who have to share rooms, and you do not put psychiatric patients in the same room for all sorts of reasons. There might be animosity between patients. One patient could be self-harming while the other patient is lying there. What does the other patient do? You may think the other patient should be seeking help for the patient who is self-harming, but the self-harming of itself could be traumatic for the other patient.
We need to start looking at how we are going to deal with overcrowding in our hospital wards. Maybe what you need is not only renovations, but to increase the number of rooms to accommodate the many mental patients that we have. We heard the minister say that Alice Springs has six beds. We have known that in Alice Springs, they have always been inadequate and not enough to service the number of people living there. It will be 12 months ago that we had a suicide in the ward in Alice Springs, commonly known as Ward 1. We try not to use that name because there is so much stigma attached to that ward.
You hear that there is inadequate staffing. My attention was drawn to the fact that the coroner, when he inquired into the suicide last year in Alice Springs, made a comment about the staff mix in Ward 1 not being adequate and, thus, was not able to support the mix of patients in Ward 1. That might have been one of the contributing factors towards the suicide of that person.
Isn’t it interesting to hear that approximately one in five, or 18%, of adults will experience mental illness in any given 12-month period? There are 25 members in this Chamber and, if you add the staff here, there are about 30 people in the Chamber. Within this Chamber, six of us are going down with mental illness. That is a scary statistic, isn’t it? One, two, three, four, five, six. There you go. Mr Deputy Speaker, I suggest to you that I have been here 11 years and I am still on my feet ...
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am certainly not indicating you, member for Greatorex.
Dr LIM: However, it is a scary statistic that one in five of us in this Chamber will suffer some sort of mental illness, as the minister calls it, in a 12-month period. The clock starts now.
Obviously, mental illness is a huge concern and people must be given the right tools to deal with it within themselves. In my professional life, I treated many schizophrenics, depressed people, people with neuroses and obsessive compulsive disorders. They need to be given tools to deal with that. With adequate support, they can live very productive lives in our community.
It is unfortunate, however, that we see such an over-representation of mental illness among Aboriginal people. The question has to be asked why. The minister did not quite elaborate on that. She identified that, yes, there are many Aboriginal people who suffer from mental illness, but she did not identify the reasons. It is important to not only know within the department, but people themselves need to know the causes. They need to know the triggers for them suffering a mental illness. By understanding the processes, people themselves can prevent it to a large degree. You cannot prevent schizophrenia; it happens. However, if you explain to a schizophrenic the trigger factors, that person can handle his or her life much better by trying to avoid those trigger factors.
Obviously, petrol sniffing has a major part to play in mental illness among the abusers. When I was on the substance abuse committee, we travelled to the Tiwi Islands. We were told about young kids smoking marijuana using bucket bongs. Imagine taking one whole cone of marijuana in one inhalation. Imagine the amount of toxins that you inhale in that one smoke. It is no wonder they suffer from paranoia and other psychiatric consequences. Then they want to try to stop the terror or the horror that is in their heads in any way they can.
The number of young people who suffer from mental illness is increasing. It is increasing so much more rapidly than in years past. These young people are not adequately cared for. There is no facility about which you can say: ‘This is for young adults or teenagers’. At the moment, if they have an acute problem that requires hospital or psychiatric ward support, they go into an adult facility. There have been many comments made nationally that this is not good enough.
Recently, there was a report that the Northern Territory has 87 young Territorians aged less than 19 years admitted to adult psychiatric wards, and half of them are under 18 years. That is a real worry. You have vulnerable young, mentally ill patients in an adult psychiatric ward in an environment where manipulation, coercion - call it what you like - will occur. You are exposing those young people to such an environment. That would lead to compounding of the problem if ever this young person, once discharged, has to return to hospital. Would they want to go back to such an environment? I suggest to you that they will not. Therein lies a problem: a person who needs help in a hospital, who is now so frightened by the experience that they will not go back. Where do you put them? Where do they get help? They desperately need the acute care and you cannot give it to them.
This government must look at what it can do to provide facilities for young people. I thought Aranda House in Alice Springs was a good facility. You could do it with that, and I am sorry to say that the resources to upgrade and refurbish Aranda House are very slow in coming. Until they do, we really have no place to go. Wildman River could be converted to help this as well. I am sure that if government had the political will, it can be done.
I was interested to hear the minister talk about more staff for the system. Previous ministers have talked about increasing Aboriginal health worker numbers and I will be very interested to hear from the minister how that program is going and what sort of numbers have been produced. It is good to have more indigenous or Aboriginal health workers because they can support patients from a very effective and sympathetic cultural background. A Chinese patient would come to me and if I appreciated their culture, I could explain their illness in an appropriate cultural context. Seeing someone who is like you makes it easier, and in terms of psychiatric illnesses, the fewer barriers there are, the better it will be.
I am not certain how the Aboriginal health worker program is going. I am led to understand that the numbers graduating from Batchelor College are not as great as they should be. I look forward to the minister giving me an update on that matter. The sooner we know what is going on, the better it will be.
Let us move from in-hospital care to outpatients, and talk about indigenous health workers in the bush supporting patients in the communities, but in urban areas. In Alice Springs, I have had so many complaints, which is why I know for certain that patients are not getting adequate support from outpatient services. People who need help ring mental health services and either they cannot get help or it takes a long time to get anyone to come and help.
Usually when a psychiatric patient rings for help, they need it there and then. It is no good saying: ‘Look, I haven’t got time to see you for another two or three weeks’. It is just not good enough. You have to do it there and then and if you do not, these people are going to be left high and dry. They will try to do the best they can. It is no wonder that they end up reaching out for drugs to try to block out whatever is in their minds.
The minister outlined many initiatives, and they are good. Will they be fulfilled? There are many motherhood-type aims. Four years of Labor and they have said these sorts of things previously, but they are yet to fulfil the desires they have articulated. I am going to pay particular attention to this portfolio, and I will be seeking frequent briefings to see how things are going.
The minister must listen to the staff, who are particularly concerned about how things are going in terms of their numbers and their skills set. As recently as 6 August this year there was the headline Nurses jab at bosses. The article said:
It is a real indictment. When staff working in an organisation say they do not trust a manager, they do not know that a manager can manage, there is real problem. How can they have any confidence at all that what they are going to be doing has any meaningful outcome at the end of the day? I quote from the article:
This is the manager of a psychiatric unit! They have to be able to deal with their own stresses a lot better if they want to help their patients. If management reacts with temper tantrums, where do we go? There are inconsistencies in rostering on Cowdy ward and graduate nurses who are not fully qualified in a sense of experience and time on the floor are required to perform the role of senior nurses on night shifts. That puts them at risk, if not the patients. Of course the patients are going to be at risk; you have a junior nurse in a senior role looking after mentally ill people. You do not know what the mentally ill people might do, and a junior nurse without the floor skills will definitely be at risk. I would hate to be in such a position.
When nurses want to take annual leave, they cannot. They have problems securing annual leave from the department. It is no wonder that the ANF has to step in and try to negotiate it through. It is just not good enough. The Health Department says everything is fine and they are going to sort things out, but we find that the department is looking at replacing the Director of Nursing in Mental Health, so there must be something quite seriously going on that requires such a drastic move.
I said that Alice Springs has insufficient beds. Six beds are simply not enough. The government must look seriously at some way of increasing that, or at least the step-down or step-up facility that the minister talked about. Let us see how you do this. You will have six step-down beds in Alice Springs. Where are you going to locate them? How are you going to staff and support the facility? How easy is it for mentally ill people in Alice Springs to have access to this facility? Without it, they are going to be out on the streets.
I draw your attention to the facility at the Red Shield Hostel run by the Salvation Army in Alice Springs. I recall the former Minister for Community Services, the member for Nightcliff, being in Alice Springs and opening the Red Shield Hostel, which was refurbished to accommodate 10 dual diagnosis people in a shelter for homeless men. The community around the Red Shield Hostel had a meeting with the Salvation Army to try to find out for themselves what the facility really meant, what sort of people would be living there, and what sort of impact there would be on the community. I was at the meeting and we were unable to get a clear answer from anyone, from the hostel itself or from the psychologists who were there on behalf of government.
The community in that area is concerned that while the dual diagnosis patients are in the Red Shield Hostel, they are under some degree of supervision, but the Red Shield Hostel takes no responsibility once these people are outside their premises. So if they walk outside the fence line, they are on their own and the community is on its own. There is a little, very nicely maintained community park where the kids love to go to play. At the moment, parents have concerns and are not prepared to let children go to the park to play because, on many occasions, people who live in the Red Shield Hostel will be in the park behaving inappropriately. I will not go into any more detail than that.
With regards to the review of the legislation, even the President of the Mental Health Review raised concerns in the year 2003-04 that the review has taken too long. It has been two years. We are now in 2005, and yet we have got nowhere with this, so, when is it going to happen?
The minister said that final drafting instructions are being prepared for Parliamentary Counsel. This is the problem with this government. It regularly says: ‘We are doing this, we want to do these motherhood things’, and they say it year in, year out. We get the political spin, the public relations exercise goes out and everyone will think the government is doing something. Then, 12 months later, nothing has happened. Another statement comes up and again the public relations wheel goes into motion and everyone feels warm and fuzzy because things are going to happen, and then 12 months later nothing happens.
It is time to stop that. It is time that we got on with getting the legislation together and making sure that the services that the government wants to provide for Territorians and those suffering from mental illness are provided.
Finally, and this is about substance abuse: if we are going to deal with indigenous children not becoming a mental health statistic, we really need to address substance abuse issues in the Northern Territory. If not, we are going to see more and more mental illness amongst indigenous young people. The corollary to mental illness is that there will be many more suicides.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome the statement. I look forward to some positive outcomes from this. I assure the minister I will be keeping a very close watch on it to ensure that the things she promised are delivered.
Mr HENDERSON (Business and Economic Development): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am speaking tonight to the statement on behalf of my colleague, the Health Minister who, as I advised the House today, has a minor ailment.
Mr HENDERSON (for and on behalf of the Minister for Health)(by leave):
As Police minister, I would like to talk about the work that our police are doing in trying to break up the supply chains, particularly of cannabis, into remote communities across the Northern Territory. I agree with the member for Greatorex that the links between excessive cannabis use and mental health problems, particularly in areas of depression and paranoia, is well proven.
I am very pleased that, with the increased funding to our police force, the additional 200 we are recruiting to the force, has allowed the police to establish a Remote Drug Desk. This drug desk is staffed by detectives and other people involved in the intelligence gathering aspects of the police force. They work hand in hand with police officers stationed in remote parts of the Northern Territory and they are achieving some very successful outcomes.
Another commitment and initiative late last year was to recruit for the first time two dedicated drug sniffer dogs to the NT police force, and they are really starting to get some great results uncovering significant quantities of cannabis en route to remote communities in terms of searching barges, aircraft and motor vehicles. Part of the government’s whole-of-government approach is to try and reduce the supply of drugs into those remote communities.
There is nothing more distressing, as we get around Community Cabinet in the Northern Territory and for our members of parliament who represent those remote communities, to sit down and talk to parents, particularly the women, in those communities who see the devastation caused by increased cannabis use. The effects of petrol sniffing and alcohol are also well known. But the scourge of cannabis is increasing in those communities, and the police have a very challenging job in front of them to do everything they can at a policing or law enforcement level to interrupt the supply of drugs into those communities.
I would like to put on record tonight, as Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services, my commitment to do everything I can to work with our police force to up the effort in this area because, at the end of the day, the people who profit from the sale of these drugs need to be brought to justice. These drugs can lead to depression and suicide. These people need to be held to account for their despicable trade. As Police minister, I am committed to that task.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the honourable minister on her statement.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to thank the minister for her statement on mental health services reform, outlining the current initiatives to improve an area of health services that operates out of sight and out of most people’s minds.
Just last week, one of my constituents reminded me of the wise words of Nelson Mandela, when he observed that you can judge the moral character of a nation by how it treats its prisoners. I believe that the same can be said for how a community treats its members who have a mental illness.
Honourable members do not need to be reminded of the horrific images from the past of the inhumane practices inflicted on sufferers of mental illness, practices that were little short of barbaric. Fortunately, we live in a more enlightened time where these practices are firmly a part of the past. Unfortunately, the stigma attached to mental illness persists. This stigma continues to plague consumers of mental health services as they bravely struggle to reform their lives in their own way, making their own choices and achieving results that not only improve their own lifestyle, but improve the quality of the community’s lifestyle as a whole.
As elected members of this Assembly, we must challenge this stigma at every opportunity. We should support services that place the needs and choices of the individual at the centre of any program. We should support providing services that recognise the need for acute residential services when necessary, and which also allow for treatment and therapy in the community, no matter where in the Northern Territory the individual lives.
This government is listening to the needs and aspirations of consumers of mental health services to ensure that the services continue to meet the needs of the consumer while they develop a sense of value and purpose in life.
Honourable members, it is for these reasons that I wholeheartedly endorse the leadership that the Martin government continues to take in this area of the health sector. In particular, I draw honourable members’ attention to the increased funding to the non-government service sector, particularly the increased funding to and recognition of consumer and carer groups.
On taking up occupancy of my electorate office in Palmerston shopping centre, one of the first community groups that I discovered using the community meeting room was the local group of GROW. This group meets weekly, and regularly attracts up to 15 people who live in the city of Palmerston and surrounding rural areas. This non-denominational group allows people with varying degrees of mental illness to meet on a regular basis and share common experiences in a friendly and non-judgmental environment.
The GROW program allows participants to develop new coping techniques at their own pace, allowing them to rebuild and take control of their own lives. I congratulate GROW for establishing a support group in Katherine and extending the important service they provide.
GROW is just one of many consumer and carer organisations that deals with mental illness. These organisations have a valuable role to play in dispelling the stigma attached to mental illness within our community by demonstrating that consumers of mental health services are not incapable of participating in society but, in fact, make a positive contribution. More importantly, the people who run GROW are consumers of mental health services themselves. It is their own first-hand knowledge that ensures that services actually meet the needs of the consumers of mental health services.
This is a model that can work effectively in the Northern Territory, particularly where it is difficult to provide services across the vast distances between remote and urban communities. The Martin Labor government acknowledges this. It is not only increasing funding to these non-government organisations, but also ensuring they have a direct say in the continuing reform of mental health services.
No discussion of mental health services can overlook the continuing issue of youth suicide within our community, particularly within the indigenous community. We must arrest this waste of potential. Some of us here may have experienced someone they know taking their own life. It is a terrible thing for a person to think that there is no better alternative.
There seems to me a further dimension to the sadness we feel when the person was in the flower of their youth. It is imperative that government provide support and assistance to those trying to discover or rediscover their self worth. We must support and assist those trying to manage or recover from their mental ill health. We must, in short, look after our own.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the statement on mental health services reform by the Minister for Family and Community Services.
As we all know, good mental health is vital to our wellbeing. It enables us to think, learn and interact in harmony with others and our environment, but for increasing numbers of people in the Northern Territory and Australia who experience poor mental health, maintaining the harmony in their lives is impossible. The carers and family members also suffer serious disruption to the harmony of their lives, which is why I am very pleased to speak on the progress of the Northern Territory government’s commitment to mental health reform in Central Australia.
Over the last four years, the commitment of additional funds by this government has enabled the recruitment of appropriately qualified staff at the Central Australian Mental Health Service. This funding has resulted in an increase in clinical staff and Aboriginal mental health workers. The rise in numbers of permanent staff has been a concomitant decline in the use of contract and agency staff, which are very positive for clients and carers who can enjoy continuity of the service and staff availability.
A further improvement has occurred with the creation of a psychiatric liaison position at Alice Springs Hospital, which provides support to the Emergency Department and hospital wards. Discharge planning has also improved with the implementation of a Wellness and Recovery plan. This service, collaboratively developed between Central Australian Mental Health Service and the Mental Health Association of Central Australia, is expected to commence this month and will provide consumers with intensive support in their own home as an alternative to hospital admission or following discharge from hospital.
To support this initiative, funding for six 24-hour staff residential beds in Alice Springs will provide intensive support for those unable to be cared for in their own home and consumers from rural and remote areas. Consumers and carers have consistently argued for improvements and an expansion of the mental health services available in Central Australia, and these improvements are a significant step towards meeting those needs.
I also want to stress the need for government suicide prevention initiatives. In our indigenous communities, where Sorry Business occurs daily, the loss of our young people to suicide is devastating and traumatic. As the minister said in her statement, the issue of suicide is complex in our indigenous communities. This complexity is compounded by the effects of historical and social dislocation, poverty, chronic disease and a lack of infrastructure and services arising from decades of development neglect. Addressing the issue of suicide requires a whole-of-government approach.
I look forward to seeing the strategic framework for suicide prevention developed and address this chronic issue. I will monitor our progress closely.
Ms LAWRIE (Family and Community Services): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank honourable members for their contribution to the statement.
In response to the member for Greatorex, I apologise for the efforts of my staff to try to schedule a briefing at a time convenient to you. However, I must point out that the letter that you wrote on 18 July was not actually received in my office until 27 July and as soon as I received it, I issued a …
Dr Lim: I e-mailed you the same day I wrote it.
Ms LAWRIE: We have a Registry process here.
Dr Lim: Blame the government then.
Ms LAWRIE: We have a Registry process here.
Dr Lim: Everyone else did.
Ms LAWRIE: Might I say that as soon as I received it, I did ask for that briefing to be arranged quite promptly.
Turning to the issues that you raised, as I outlined in my statement, the department has been proactive in implementing a plan to reduce the number of patients leaving the Cowdy ward without medical approval.
A review of safety and security in the Top End Mental Health Service Inpatient Unit was undertaken in January of 2004. The review did find that there were too many entry and exit points to the ward, and recommended that all but one of these points be sealed. It further recommended modifications to create a new reception area to increase observation at the remaining single entry-exit point. This work has been completed in consultation with staff both at the Cowdy ward and the other areas of the hospital.
In addition, two high dependency beds were moved from Cowdy ward to the Joan Ridley unit, decreasing the number of open beds from 18 to 16 and increasing the number of locked beds from eight to 10.
Another issue raised by the member for Greatorex requires clarification: yes, comment was made on the staffing mix at the Alice Springs Mental Health facility on the night that the death occurred. The coroner recognised that the staff mix was not ideal on that night due to staff illness. Importantly, he also found that this did not contribute to the tragedy that occurred. I must also point out there have been significant modifications in the Alice Springs unit to improve the safety and security of the physical environment.
Member for Greatorex, you have a new found but welcome interest in areas of the mental health system. Under the previous government, there were three child and adolescent mental health positions in the Top End and one in Central Australia. So far, we have increased this staffing to include two child psychiatrists, one in the Top End and one NT-wide, and three child and adolescent clinicians, two in the Top End and one in Central Australia. This year, we will increase these numbers even further, with another three positions across the NT to provide services to rural and remote areas.
Let me also place on the record some facts about Aboriginal mental health workers. Prior to this government, five Aboriginal mental health workers were employed in the Territory health system with another four workers funded by the Australian government. We have increased that number to 13 in the public system, as well as picking up funding for the four Commonwealth positions. In effect, we have funded nine additional Aboriginal mental health positions over our first term of government.
This year, we will also provide funding to the Top End Division of General Practice program so that it can expand its Aboriginal mental health worker program, and we will be providing funding to the Tiwi Islands service so that it, too, can employ additional Aboriginal mental health workers.
The member for Greatorex spoke about the contribution of volatile substance abuse or petrol sniffing to mental disorders or psychosis. This issue has long been recognised by this government and that is why we introduced the Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Act. It is why this government has tended to establish treatment and rehabilitation services in Alice Springs and Darwin and is funding outstations to carry out this work. We recognise that treatment and support are needed. That is why this government, as opposed to members opposite, are not going to send these young people to gaol.
The member for Brennan spoke about the importance of community organisations, and particularly GROW, in providing support for those members of our community who live with a mental illness, and their carers and family. As I outlined in my statement, the community sector is key to the government’s reform agenda, with unprecedented and increasing levels of financial support flowing to these organisations. Support services in the non-government sector have increased significantly from $827 000 in 2002-03 to an anticipated $2.354m in 2005-06.
I would like to expand on the comments by the member for Brennan and take time to outline and acknowledge more of the significant work undertaken by the non-government sector. In 2004, my predecessor, the member for Arafura, recognised the Northern Territory Mental Health Coalition as the mental health peak body of the Northern Territory. The group has representatives from the key mental health organisations including GROW, Top End Mental Health Consumers’ Organisation, NTCOSS, Team Health, Northern Territory Association of Relatives and Friends of the Mentally Ill, known as NTARFMI, and in early 2005, this group was formally granted a seat on the Mental Health Council of Australia. This means that we now have a spokesperson in this national body reporting on the interests and concerns of Territory consumers and mental health organisations.
In 2004, this government provided $40 000 to the coalition, which we have now increased to $85 000 each year for coordination and promotion activities. It is the first time this group has received such support from a Territory government and is a clear demonstration of our commitment to mental health issues and to the sector.
Since I became minister, I have met with representatives of the Mental Health Coalition, as well as members of Team Health and the Mental Health Association of Central Australia. Team Health, the Top End Association for Mental Health, is a key mental health NGO in Darwin. It runs a number of programs funded under our Mental Health Program, including rehabilitation, case management, long-term supported accommodation and outreach support services. It is also the organisation that successfully tendered for our new individual community care packages, which are expected to commence this week.
As I outlined briefly in my statement, the aim of this service is to intensively support people in their own homes or other suitable accommodation. Clients of the service may be people experiencing a temporary worsening of their mental illness, but who do not require treatment in hospital, or those who have been in hospital and need some extra support when they go home.
The Mental Health Association of Central Australia has also received funding to provide individual community care packages, which they prefer to call the Prevention and Recovery Service. They have a strong client focus, with client representation on their board, as well as strong connections to the community. Indeed, various businesses from Alice Springs assisted this organisation to furnish some of their supported accommodation facilities. The work this group is doing is indeed extremely impressive, and I look forward to going back and spending more time with them on one of my future trips to Alice Springs. I thank them for the information they provided me when I visited them. They were an inspirational group of workers committed to assisting people with a mental illness into wellbeing.
The member for Macdonnell touched on the difficult and complex issue of suicide and suicide prevention, particularly in remote indigenous communities. Our government’s Strategic Framework for Suicide Prevention, a first for the Territory, will work to address the many issues that contribute to the high rates of suicide and self-harm in these communities. As I outlined in my statement, a dedicated Suicide Prevention Coordinator will be recruited to progress implementation of the framework.
I thank the member for Wanguri, the minister representing the Minister for Health, for the comments that he provided on behalf of the Minister for Health. They were insightful, and it is very useful for my carriage of the portfolio of Family and Community Services to have a minister with carriage of Health who shares a passion in caring for people who have a mental illness and putting in place the resources required to promote mental and emotional wellbeing in our community. He has a vast knowledge when it comes to services, requirements and needs in Central Australia, so it is very good to work with him.
I thank all the members who contributed to the debate today. I thank the member for Greatorex, the shadow minister for Family and Community Services, for his contribution, his keenness and awareness in joining with the government in promoting mental wellbeing, and for encouraging us to continue to implement the many reforms we have introduced.
I thank the member for Brennan for his insightful care and concern, and the comments he has made in relation to this statement. He is quite right: non-government organisations provide so much support in our society. I commit to continuing the good work of the member for Arafura in ensuring that we support the Mental Health Coalition, which is the umbrella for non-government organisations, and I promise to go out and visit such places as GROW and Pete’s Place. I am looking forward to those visits.
I thank the member for Macdonnell. I know she has an abiding depth of knowledge in how remote communities work, and the importance of understanding what services and support the remote communities need to improve the wellbeing of their communities.
I hope to make visits to her communities with her over the time that I have carriage of this portfolio because I have much to learn in how we can improve these remote services. However, I am very aware that my predecessor has put in place the strongest possible foundation on which to deliver important mental health services right throughout the Northern Territory. No longer will they be urban-centric. They are already regional and remote in their nature.
Mental health is clearly an issue that affects us all. It is not confined to any one group of people. It can affect people of all ages and all cultures. The costs of mental health issues to the community - not only the financial cost, but the strain these issues can place on individuals and families - are significant. The work done in reforms and the resources allocated to implement them are about saving lives and improving the lives of those suffering a mental illness, their families and their carers.
I thank all the department staff. I know I have a very willing and able team of professionals who working in mental health services for the Northern Territory. I look forward to continuing to work with them. I thank the staff on the ground who have accommodated me with my visits to the inpatient units. They have been very insightful and have helped me to understand where our priorities lie in increasing the step-down and step-up community care packages that we are providing in the community through tenders. I look forward to a very close, positive working partnership with non-government organisations that are supporting and delivering services to people with a mental illness.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Ms LAWRIE (Family and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
This evening, I acknowledge a fantastic event in the Karama community on Sunday past, 14 August. Karama Neighbourhood Watch held their 3rd Annual Karama Fun Day. It was held again at Karama Primary School. This year, we had about 350 people come through the school.
The event included a fantastic performance by Chantal the Fairy. I have never heard such a crowd of kids screaming with sheer delight at the entertainment. Chantal has many skills and is enormously popular with the children of neighbourhood. She did some of the most spectacular face painting I have ever seen. She has recently been to the United States and honed her skills even further, and her face painting is nothing short of spectacular. We also had jumping castles and a play van which the kids used all day long; they were free and the kids loved them.
Neighbourhood Watch had their stall and we had at least six people sign up as new Neighbourhood Watch members, which is fantastic. We ran the drink stall on behalf of the Karama Primary School, providing them with the money collected on the day as a donation to the school. There was a free barbecue hosted by the Karama Neighbourhood Watch volunteers on the day.
I thank the Darwin City Council for the presence of Alderman Alan Mitchell and Alderman Dorothy Fox who sat throughout the day, explaining what council does.
The Beat the Heat police car came along. The children were very excited about checking out the Holden Commodore SS on show. I promised to have a ride in a drag with the Beat the Heat car. I will be in the passenger seat, though, because I can assure you I am not astute at drag racing.
The events on the day included tug-of-war and sack races and a round robin softball competition organised by one of our local mothers and a softball experts, Kerry Wetherall.
We had the mounted police show up towards the end of the day, and they were very popular.
There was a new performance this year by the Dog Obedience Club. It was really interesting to see just how capable people are at controlling their dogs and getting the dogs to do all sorts of tricks and jumps and go through hoops and loops. Everyone loved it, and we all went home inspired to get our dogs to behave much better. There really was a community benefit there.
There was another fantastic performance by the Manunda Terrace Rope Ragers. We had a great performance from Karama Primary School children singing, and Corrugated Iron Youth dancers performed their own choreographed work.
The round robin was a good competition between local families. Mums, dads and kids all got into teams together. The Ah Hills, a combination of the Ah Sams and the Hills, took out the competition. They enjoyed the fact that I presented them with a Fun Day perpetual trophy. It is a very kitsch-looking trophy, quite in keeping with the fun aspect of the day.
I thank, in particular, the Karama Neighbourhood Watch Area Coordinator, Kerrie Behm. She has been a fantastic supporter of Karama, and really gets stuck into her commitment to Neighbourhood Watch and crime prevention. I thank members of the organising committee, Sue Hoddindott, Andy Burnett, Stephen Farrawell, and Acting Sergeant Geoff Pickering.
My electorate officer, Jessica Paolucci, has been working behind the scenes for months pulling this day together. She was tireless in her efforts, and I thank her for both her organisation and being there on the day. The board members, the ever-faithful Paul Wyatt - I think he is up to his 19000th sausage or some ridiculous figure that has cooked on behalf of the community - and Ken Mildred, the Neighbourhood Watch Chair, who was running around taking photos having a fantastic time.
Other Neighbourhood Watch volunteers who are very good and got stuck in on the day were Marion Hancock who had to put up with all the kids on the jumping castle and the play van, and I promised her that she will not have to do that duty next year, and Helene and Joe Clarke, Leigh Kariko, Kevin and Rita Cluley and Sue Pattislemo..
We had great sponsorship and donations from: Coles Karama, which provided all the food at no cost for the Fun Day; Peter La Pira, the owner of Karama Shopping Centre from Joondana Investments, covered the costs for the drinks for the day to the tune of about $600; Schuberts Catering provided the barbecue, eskies and shade at no cost; and Crocodylus Park donated two vouchers.
It was a thoroughly enjoyable day. As I said, about 350 people from the Karama community came and celebrated our safe, wonderful community together. I thank all those volunteers who went to such a huge effort for another popular Karama Fun Day.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, tonight I want to raise a matter that is fairly serious and needs to be dealt with urgently.
I hope the relevant minister listens to this and might take it on board. It relates to the 8CCC FM radio station in Alice Springs. Today, I received a letter that was delivered to my office and sent up to me regarding what is going to happen to the 8CCC FM radio station in Alice Springs.
I want to read some paragraphs from this letter so that my information is accurate:
Let me go back and explain. About 20 plus years ago when it was the Alice Springs College of TAFE and I was Chair, we obtained a community radio licence to run 8CCC FM, and the licence was held by the Alice Springs College of TAFE on behalf of the community. We provided premises and broadcasting facilities for the community group to run the radio station. The radio station has evolved over these last 20 plus years to become part of Territory network whereby TOP-FM broadcasts are relayed in Alice Springs and some programs are also passed up the track.
Management has always been auspiced by the Alice Springs College of TAFE. When the Alice Springs College of TAFE became Centralian College, the licence was then held by the corporate body, but within Centralian College. When Centralian College was amalgamated with the Northern Territory University to form Charles Darwin University, the Charles Darwin University took over responsibility of the community radio station and provided the space and broadcasting facilities for 8CCC FM radio station.
Coming back to the letter:
which they had not anticipated; there was another community group in Alice Springs which put in a bid:
That is despicable.
There is a major issue here, Madam Speaker. This radio station has been managed by a community group for almost 20 years. They have had ups and downs and there have been financial difficulties at times. They have been able to secure good sponsorship at other times. There have been good relationships with Darwin at times, and other times – just like with any community group – there has been fall out.
What rationale Charles Darwin University has to do what it has done, I do not know. I admit this is one side of the argument. I have not heard from Charles Darwin University and I will follow it through over the next few days to find out why it has done what it has done. The radio station is patronised by Alice Springs and Tennant Creek people. There is good and continuing financial support through sponsorship of programs on the station; they have good ethnic language programs on the station as well. It would be a tragedy to see 8CCC community radio wound up in Alice Springs.
I have been associated with the radio station for a long time. As I said, I was Chairman of the Alice Springs College of TAFE, I was part of the organising committee which got it off the ground and then continued, as College Chair, to foster the radio station through until the days of the Centralian College. It is important for the university administration to discuss this matter openly and without any reservation with the community groups. If they have issues with them, I would be more than happy to be the facilitator to try to iron out any issues that may be there.
If what is conveyed in this letter is the truth, then there has been some underhanded activities going on, and I am not very pleased with that.
I have a few minutes remaining, and I recognise the comment by the member for Wanguri that I tend to take up the whole of my 15 minutes, but I guard the privilege to speak in adjournment jealously. It is an opportunity for us to raise issues in parliament when no other opportunity is available.
I want to talk about this petition that has been circulated by government. I picked up several of them from stands at the Darwin Show a few weeks ago. I picked them up from the DEET stand, the DPIF stand, the Department of the Chief Minister stand, the Department of Justice stand, and one from the Treasury stand. I was advised that Sport and Recreation also had the petition at their stand. Last week, I received this in my letterbox in Alice Springs, one in my electorate office, and my electorate officer received one. Obviously there has been a mass mail-out.
Mr Henderson: Given you oppose the dump, you should be signing the petition.
Dr LIM: People are particularly sensitive about this.
Mr Henderson: No, no. We would just like to see you sign it. You oppose the dump.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr LIM: I thought: ‘What is happening here?’ This is government policy and is now being promulgated through the public service. I recall something called a Good Governance election policy; Labor’s Plan to Build a Better Territory. There are things in there that this government said. I went searching for it, and it is interesting. The boot is on the other foot, obviously. It wanted to support a reformed parliament, and one of the things it wanted to do was to support the integrity of public servants. It says this:
Then it goes on to talk about ministerial responsibilities, etcetera. If this is not government abusing its power and dragging the public service into this sort of behaviour, it is unworthy of the government that aspires to do the right thing, to be honest, open and fair. This is truly unfair. I was at the Darwin Show for a couple of days, and on the first day it was not there - then guess what happened! One of the middle managers in the public service came to the CLP show stand and said: ‘Do you know this is happening? This is offensive’. That public servant did not like it. ‘We have to get this out, ask people to sign it. It is just not right’.
That is how I found about it. Then I took a walk around the show stands looking for these things and they were there. Some of the public servants at the show stand invited me to put my signature on it, so obviously if they did that with me, they must have done that with other people who attended the show.
That is not right. I ask the government to seriously consider how it has politicised the public service. It is just another indication of what this government has done. Madam Speaker, you would be interested in this. This is part of the same document, Good Governance: Labor’s Plan to Build a Better Territory. In the Legislative Assembly Chamber, guess what it says! I remind you:
Geez! It describes some people that I know:
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to share with you some of the enjoyable moments and visits I have experienced recently in my electorate with my wonderful constituents.
August is a very special time for us. It is Seniors Month, a time when we should all let seniors in our community know how much they mean to us by doing something special for them. I know sometimes seniors can be very isolated; I have experienced that while I have been doorknocking. People look forward to someone knocking on their door so they can have a coffee and spend a few minutes in the company of other people. Some of our seniors are very isolated and lonely.
One special senior in my electorate has certainly made me feel very special. Instead of me giving her a gift, she gave one to me. I was very privileged and happy to be personally presented with a beautiful painting of an old neighbourhood of Nicosia in Cyprus. It was painted by one of my senior constituents residing in Tambling Terrace, Ms Yvonne Sinclair. Yvonne said that she wanted to give me something as a thank you for what I do for the seniors in my electorate. I do not do much; I host morning teas. However, I always visit them, listen to their concerns and try to help them.
Ms Yvonne Sinclair is a credit to our community. Yvonne and her husband, Ian, came to the Territory in 1972. They lived in Gove from 1972 to 1979, where Ian worked for Nabalco and Yvonne worked at Woolworths. They moved to Darwin in 1979 and, since their retirement, they have settled into Tambling Terrace Seniors Village since it was built in early 2001.
Yvonne has a fantastic garden. She spends a lot of time in, and I reckon that it is equivalent to the George Brown Botanic Gardens. In such a small area, she has managed to create a beautiful garden with lots of plants and flowers, beautifully organised with statues and gravel. She says that it gives her an opportunity to ease her rheumatoid arthritis. I do not know she manages with rheumatoid arthritis to do the work she does in the garden, but it always looks immaculate and clean. I am thinking of employing her to fix my garden because my garden looks like a jungle, plus I do not have the time to attend to it.
They have won first prize every year since they entered the Fabulous Garden competition in the Territory Housing Garden Competition, having been announced the winner for the fourth year in a row just this week.
Yvonne said her mother was an artist and she acquired her painting talents from her. She has only been painting for the past three years, and finds that she thoroughly enjoys it. All of her paintings are given away as gifts to her family and friends. I would like to thank Yvonne very much for the beautiful painting of Nicosia. I was very proud to hang it in my electorate office where everyone can admire it.
I turn now to schools. As I promised, after the first part of the upgrade of Nakara Primary was completed, I was delighted to attend the official opening of the upgraded staff room facility a couple of weeks ago. Stage 1 is now completed, as we promised before the 2001 election. A lot of people worked on the upgrade and there were some problems. One of the interesting problems was that they were delayed for six weeks because the people who designed and rebuilt the staff room could not get structural steel. There was such a demand in the Territory for structural steel, they had to wait for it from interstate. Not only that, but people who had other skills like tilers, all of a sudden converted to roofers because they could get more money by installing the roof and corrugated iron than they would earn as tilers.
I have to say that the upgraded staff room is absolutely magnificent: an indoor and outdoor area for teachers to relax and prepare. I was very happy to share a few drinks with them and celebrate the opening of the new school.
The other school that is currently under renovation is Alawa Primary. Local building firm PTM Homes won the contract of $2m to upgrade the school. They commenced the demolition of the old classrooms when the school went into recess for holidays. They have already poured the slab and, as the principal of the school, Ms Sharon Reeves, told me, they were very helpful, always consulting with the school about when to start jack hammering or demolition and building so they did not inconvenience the school or create problems for teaching the children.
Alawa Primary School is a very innovative school, and I was recently invited to have a look at one of the newest acquisitions, an interactive whiteboard. I felt like a kid in a lolly shop because it is one fantastic whiteboard. You can actually, with your finger, write on the whiteboard and, immediately, it will be transferred to a computer. They can put on the whiteboard models or graphs or teaching aids for the children, and can show the whole class while the kids can work on the whiteboard and their work will go directly to the computer. I would like to congratulate Sharon and her staff of the fantastic job they are doing at the Alawa Primary School, one of the most multicultural schools in the Northern Territory.
Dripstone High is a school that is well known for academic achievements, but also for its links with other schools, not only in Australia but overseas. Dripstone High has a very close relationship with Kibi Cho High School in Japan. Kibi Cho is a regional high school in an area where the major product is oranges and other citrus. Every year, children and teachers from Kibi Cho visit Darwin, attending one or two week classes at Dripstone and, in exchange, children and teachers from Dripstone will go to Kibi Cho in Japan to attend classes there.
This year we had about 20 students and teachers from Kibi Cho and were very privileged to have two billets, two Japanese boys 14 years old, who did not speak a word of English. It made for interesting conversation. I have to admit that my wife, Marg, and I had a few difficulties communicating with them but our two sons, Alexander and Michael, did not have any difficulty at all. They spent most of their time either playing computer games or out shooting at the basketball ring. I always find it amazing that kids can get along so well and so easily, even when they come from different cultures and do not speak the language.
I have been advised that the kids were very impressed when they came to parliament. That particular day, I was away at Pigeon Hole, but the kids came up to my ministerial office where they had morning tea. I thank the member for Wanguri for greeting them, and yourself, Madam Speaker, for welcoming them and showing them around. I believe they were very impressed that they were sitting in your chair and taking photographs. I do not think they have ever had an opportunity to go to the Japanese parliament, but they were lucky enough to come to the Northern Territory parliament. When I asked a few of them, the ones who speak English, if they enjoyed it, they were speaking so quickly so enthusiastically that Japanese and English languages were mixed, but I got the message that they were very excited and very impressed.
Last week, I and the member of Wanguri were privileged and very happy to have an update on the new suburb of Lyons. The people from the company that will construct the new suburb of Lyons gave us a presentation at the office of the member for Wanguri. We were briefed in the presence of Aldermen John Bailey and Jan Collins. They explained the work they have done with neighbours, how they are going to address problems with traffic, and how they are going to avoid problems with congestion when several new blocks will be subdivided and new houses will be built in the suburb of Lyons.
Our understanding is that they will be working very closely with the council and a traffic report will be lodged with Darwin City Council on 15 August before the report is provided to the Development Consent Authority where it will be heard on 7 September. The member for Wanguri and I are very interested in the new development of the suburb of Lyons. I am well aware that people in Darwin are queuing up to buy a block in the area. The other day, I was in the supermarket when a lady apologised for disturbing me when I was doing my shopping, but she asked me how she could put a deposit on a block in Lyons. I directed her to the web page of Defence Housing Authority where, apparently, you can put your name down. I have been advised that there will be a lottery for the houses to be allocated because something in the order of 400 houses are going to be allocated to the public, and I believe they have an excess of 2000 applications.
The other day I was very pleased to visit the Casuarina Coastal Reserve and see that the realignment of Trower Road, funded by the Territory government, is now complete. It is fantastic. It has taken away the cars from the houses so that people are not complaining any more about lights shining into their bedrooms or their lounge rooms and there has been a reduction in noise.
I was particularly pleased to meet a couple of people from the council in the area and they advised that the council has allocated $130 000 to landscape the realignment, the traffic islands and the roundabout. I am looking forward to seeing the plans that the council will produce after consultation with the public about the landscaping of the area.
I was also pleased to receive a letter the other day from the Lord Mayor of Darwin, Peter Adamson, who advised me that the council made a decision to extend the closure of the laneway between Kilfoyle Crescent and Bradshaw Terrace for another few months. As you are aware, I had campaigned very strongly for that laneway to be closed because it was a focus for antisocial behaviour. Also, it was an escape route for people, if they had committed antisocial acts or vandalism. When the police tried to chase them, they would run through this laneway and disappear in the surrounding suburbs.
Following my lobbying, and with the assistance of Casuarina Shopping Square, it was decided that gates would be installed. Casuarina Shopping Square security officers lock the gates at 7 o’clock at night and reopen them at 6 o’clock in the morning. Since then, during my campaigning and doorknocking, I have discovered that antisocial behaviour in the area has completely gone done. People are quite happy that they do not have the level of vandalism they had before and that proves that council has seriously to consider the future of laneways and consult with the local residents. This is not the first time. I believe the Amsterdam Road laneway was closed as well, and that reduced antisocial behaviour in the area.
The Lord Mayor of Darwin wrote to me and asked me to make a submission as to whether or not I support the closure of the laneway. I was very pleased to write to the Lord Mayor and advise him that I fully supported the closure of the laneway, not an extension for a few months, but total closure of the laneway because the results speak for themselves.
I also asked the council to have a really good look at a number of laneways that they have in Darwin. I believe they have in excess of 150. Most of them create problems. Some of them are used by residents. In respect of the ones that cause problems, it is appropriate for the council to consider the future of the laneways and do what other councils around Australia did. In a particular area in Western Australia where I worked in local government, we had a very similar problem with laneways and the local government decided to close them, divide them in two and offer them for sale for a nominal fee to the adjoining blocks. By doing that, not only did they not have to maintain them any more, but it completely eliminated a focus of antisocial behaviour and the residents were very pleased.
Hopefully, the council will consult with local residents and will continue to listen to local residents and will consider the future of laneways and close them as is appropriate. The comments I received from the residents and the police about the effect of the closure of the laneway in the area are fantastic. It really indicates that if you provide anti-crime measures in an area like improved lighting and closing laneways, you can significantly reduce antisocial behaviour in the area.
I commend the council for their initiative to extend the closure and I commend Casuarina Shopping Square for being such a good corporate citizen and participating in this trial.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to talk about a couple of things, the first of which is the 2005 Golf for Breast Cancer day which was held in Alice Springs on Friday, 12 August. I am very proud to be one of several organisers of this event, which is in its third year.
I would like to thank the other organisers, Karen Jones, Deb Pepper, Tracey Guerin, Michelle Goodwin and Jo Hansen, and extend thanks to Dee Davies as well as Jan Wilkie who provided their assistance. In particular, I thank all of the businesses in Alice Springs that gave so generously. At the conclusion of my comments, I will table, as I did last year I think, a copy of the program for the day.
It is clear that this event has been well supported by the business community, and many of them not the usual suspects, Madam Speaker, when it comes to businesses that are ordinarily contacted to provide sponsorship for these sorts of things. We had a number of prizes. We had all 18 holes of the golf course sponsored. We had probably 40 or 50 sponsors and an advertisement is going to be placed in the Centralian Advocate on Friday thanking all of those people.
As I said, this is the third year. In the first year, we had about 80 women who participated and we only used nine holes of the Alice Springs Golf Course, one of the best golf courses in the world. In the second year, the numbers increased to about 110 or 120. This year, like last year, we used all 18 holes of the golf course. We had almost 200 women, or 44 or 45 teams participating on the day.
It seems to have become an event on the social calendar for women in Alice Springs. Teams dressed up; some of the costumes were truly amazing. I think next year we will need to have first, second and third prizes for the best dressed teams.
I thank all of the blokes who helped out. It is the case, clearly, that men have mothers, daughters, wives, sisters who are affected by breast cancer. We had so many men offering to help. Their help was invaluable and, in so many respects, immeasurable. It was a great community event and I am very pleased and honoured to be part of a team that organises it.
Madam Speaker will recall that I sent an e-mail to Labor members of parliament a couple of weeks ago alerting them to this event. This is not about politics; it is about raising money for a very important cause.
I am very pleased to say that the member for Macdonnell came along and I understand that she had a very enjoyable time. A little birdie told me that when she arrived and saw the teams and the lengths to which many of them went to get dressed up, the member for Macdonnell was overheard to be discussing with her team mates what they might wear next year to get into the spirit of things. It is great that, as leaders in our community, politicians, particularly women politicians, turn up to this event and I will certainly be making the same invitation to all women members of parliament next year.
The money that we raise will go directly, this year, to the National Breast Cancer Foundation. We have worked with the NT Cancer Council in the past, but have been clear to date at least that the money raised is to go specifically to breast cancer research. It was in about December last year that I was in Darwin attending a breast cancer function, and one of the representatives from the National Breast Cancer Foundation was in Darwin, where she gave a presentation and I met her. It was through that connection that I then contacted her and we have now arranged for funds to go directly to the Breast Cancer Foundation.
I have received correspondence from the Breast Cancer Foundation and I wish to quote a couple of paragraphs from it:
Madam Speaker, although we still are literally counting the money, we anticipate getting reasonably close to $10 000, which, in this day and age, is not bad for any fund raising activity.
There are so many people to thank, it is appropriate that we put an ad in the Centralian Advocate, but to everyone: the women, the men, the organisers, the sponsors, to those who turned up, to those who just provided support, I extend a heartfelt thank you on behalf of all members of this Assembly. I seek leave to table a copy of the program. It may be of some use.
Leave granted.
Ms CARNEY: I wish to speak, again relatively briefly, about another matter that I have been contacted about, as a member of parliament. In particular, I want to comment about an article that appeared in the Alice Springs News on 27 July 2005. The article to which I refer was head lined No level playing field for kids’ sports travel. I seek leave to table a copy of the article.
Leave granted.
Ms CARNEY: The story has a front page lead, and is in its expanded form on page three. The article centres on a person I know in Alice Springs, Mr Paul Lelliott and his children. The article concentrates on the disparity between the assistance given from various funding sources to indigenous and non-indigenous Territorians. Mr Lelliott is clearly unhappy that there appear to be two sets of rules separating him from Aboriginal parents in the community. The support available to he and his wife is limited when compared to the support from the Commonwealth government that is offered to Aboriginal children.
Just because Mr Lelliott is not of Aboriginal extraction, he is not able to access the funds that Aboriginal people can tap into. There are certainly Aboriginal people in Alice Springs who do earn more than Mr Lelliott, as there are doubtlessly many Aboriginal people who earn less. The funding available is not, however, means tested; it is based on the colour, it seems, of children’s skin.
Mr Lelliott and I are certainly not criticising the fact that money is available for indigenous kids. That should be the case, and the more money, the better. However, the point is raised because it does seem incongruous that there is a clear divide or difference between outcomes for kids involved in sport and, in particular, non-indigenous and indigenous kids. It seems unfair and unjust, and Mr Lelliott, I am told, has received a number of phone calls from other people.
These are decent, right-thinking people. It is not a race issue as such; they do not begrudge money for Aboriginal kids. What they are saying is that there are some non-Aboriginal kids who also deserve and require some help for them to participate in their sport, and all of us would have some sympathy with that because all of us want to see as many kids as possible participate in sport.
According to the newspaper report, the Commonwealth government has its programs and the Territory government has its when it comes to sport and kids. The Commonwealth government’s project is, as I understand it, indigenous-specific, but the Northern Territory government does not appear to be doing anything to fill the gap.
I am simply asking this government to do something about this. Saying that it is the Commonwealth government’s fault is not good enough, but it is also not good enough on the part of the Commonwealth government either.
I take this opportunity to urge the minister for sport to write to the Commonwealth government about this matter. I want the minister to contact her federal counterpart so that this sort of inequity does not continue to exist. It would certainly be a better result for Mr Lelliott and his family if the Northern Territory sports minister contacted him direct to talk with him about this.
I get the impression that the minister has not taken an active interest in the matter, and I understand Mr Lelliott is somewhat disappointed as a result. It is a sad day when kids miss out on sporting trips based on nothing more than their colour. It seems as though something is wrong somewhere and I urge the minister for sport to pick this matter up and to pursue it with her federal counterpart.
For my part, I will be writing to the Commonwealth government with a view to seeing what I can do or what information I can obtain and provide to Mr Lelliott. As I said, I ask the Territory government’s sporting minister to do the same.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Madam Speaker, it is a sad occasion but, at the same time, a very proud occasion for me to have the opportunity, as the member for Millner, to speak about the life of Eunice Lee. It is funny how God works in mysterious ways. We have had U3A visit in the last two days, and Eunice was a member. I have a U3A newsletter, which dedicates an article to the memory of Eunice Lee. This has been adapted from a eulogy at Eunice’s funeral by Joyce Deering:
Madam Speaker, Eunice Lee was a fantastic lady who was a member of the Millner community for over 40 years. She was a backbone of her neighbourhood.
Her death is really a sad occasion because she was one of the first supporters who really got behind me as the local member. She knew Terry Smith, Jon Isaacs, Ken Parish and other members of the Australian Labor Party who represented the area for many, many years. She often voiced her opinion. She was a good strong Labor supporter and I know she will be sadly missed by her daughters. I wish her well upstairs in the big house.
Madam Speaker, the other matter I would like to raise tonight is some information passed on to me by the Minister for Defence Support. As people may know, the RAAF Base is in my electorate, and I have done many hours of doorknocking and working in that area over the last four years. I have come to know the area quite well and have been a great supporter of the Defence Force football team, which trains on the base.
It is my understanding that on the 50th anniversary of the RAAF in 1976, Hawker and De Havilland presented the Hawker Siddeley Trophy in recognition of the close business relationship between the three organisations. Since then, the trophy has been awarded each year to the most proficient RAAF Base.
In June 2005, the trophy was awarded to RAAF Base Darwin for the tireless dedication, professionalism and teamwork of the RAAF Base Darwin unit and personnel during 2004 in ensuring that all exercises, deployment operational support tasks and defence aid to civil community support requests were achieved. In particular, the outstanding success of the high profile five nations exercise Pitch Black 2004 drew special praise.
This is the letter sent by the Minister for Defence Support, Paul Henderson, to Group Captain Mark Kelton, Officer Commanding RAAF Base Darwin:
Madam Speaker, as the local member, I hope to continue to represent the personnel and families of the RAAF Base Darwin to the best of my ability, and I congratulate them on this award.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I recently attended the launch of Seniors Week in Palmerston. There is as a group of seniors who go to special efforts above and beyond the other celebrations throughout the Territory, and focus specifically on events for Palmerston. It is a very full program that they manage to put together.
The launch was held at Woodroffe Primary School. I am no good at estimations, but I estimate that over 100 seniors attended. There was a barbeque staffed by volunteers. Quite a few people attended the event in an official or semi-official capacity. As well as myself, Senator Trish Crossin attended, as did member of the House of Representatives, Mr Tollner, and the member for Nelson. There were representatives from the Palmerston City Council, Robert Macleod and Judy Joyce. In fact, Judy Joyce represented the Mayor and officially opened the event.
It really was a great afternoon. I could not stay for the whole event. I had my wife, Sharon, and son with me. We sat at a table speaking with George and Phyl Barrand. George was providing the music on an electric organ. He and Phyl were telling me that he donates his time and provides music for many different functions not just in and around Palmerston, but throughout Darwin as well.
We each received a Happiness Kit. If I remember correctly, these were created by Cath, Joy, Dotty and Pam. They included an eraser so that you can erase your past mistakes, a rose - all hand made by the ladies who put their little packs together - there was a little saying in with them; it was a really nice thing to be handing around to everyone who attended, so well done to them.
Of course, there were the Senior Songsters who provided entertainment and they will be singing at the closing ceremony as well, I understand.
Another event I attended was the Union Picnic Day on Sunday, 7 August. That was organised by Unions NT and Bechtel, which shows what you can do when you have an employer who is not anti-union for the sake of being anti-union. As many people would know, the site is a very well unionised workplace where unions and management work things out amicably. The company supports and recognises the valuable role that the unions have.
At least 200 people attended the barbecue at Marlow Lagoon Reserve. The food and soft drinks were all free, supplied by Bechtel. There was a talented guitarist/vocalist, Wynton Nathan, who played and sang for everyone who attended. He is an AWU delegate at the Bechtel site.
A number of speakers addressed the audience, focusing, obviously, on the potential effects of the Howard government’s industrial relations reform. They included myself, Joe Gallagher, who is the President of Unions NT, Senator Trish Crossin spoke on behalf of the federal parliamentary Labor wing as well as NT Labor, Jamey Robertson, a well-known union official from the AMWU and something of a Northern Territory and Darwin personality, and Gordon McDonald from the AWU.
Dr Lloyd Kent was there from the Council of Churches NT. He delivered a speech on behalf of the Council of Churches NT, and made it clear that the views that were being expressed were the views of that council and not him personally. Many noted the concerns about government having a role to look after the community and families, not just the economic policy. It sounded very similar to what the other speakers had been saying. Many people were interested to obtain a copy of his speech, including me, to ponder over it some more. He came at the issue from a slightly different perspective, but it is good to know that the Council of Churches is aware of what is going on and have some concerns about the process. It debunks the myth that any opposition is simply coming from Labor or union political interests.
The picnic day was a fantastic and undoubted success. I understand that more are in the pipeline, and I certainly look forward to attending more of these events. I encourage all members to get down to any picnic days or other union organised family activities because it really is about families. Unions do not operate in isolation. Unions are not some third party organisation. A union is its members and their families, so it is fantastic to see Unions NT along with a major employer like Bechtel organising something like this and I hope that other employers will do the same.
I would like to make mention of Michelle Wilson from Palmerston Christian School, who won Palmerston’s own writing competition in the short stories category. I understand that she lives in my electorate of Brennan, so congratulations to Michelle for that wonderful achievement.
I have made a point of visiting various schools in and around my electorate. I do not confine myself simply to Brennan, but try to visit all schools in Palmerston because I am taking a whole-of-Palmerston approach. Gray Primary School has just opened its Homework Centre where students are encouraged to go and do their homework. Unfortunately, it stopped functioning, I understand, due to delays in funding from the Commonwealth government but, thankfully, that has all been worked out.
Staff work there predominantly on a volunteer basis. It is very important for students in primary school years to get a solid foundation in literacy and numeracy. The commitment of all teachers at the schools I have visited is fantastic; they all do volunteer work above and beyond the normal duties of a teacher, and there is really is a sense of community.
I would like to mention the breakfast club program, which is run by the Red Cross at Gray Primary School, and I think it runs at Moulden Park Primary School. I have volunteered to assist with the program at Gray; it is fantastic. Those kids who may not get breakfast at home are able to access a free breakfast to ensure that they are then able to concentrate through the morning and make the most of their learning opportunities. You can only congratulate the Red Cross for running that program in conjunction with the schools. Gray also has a morning tea program of much the same principle. My first day was interesting. I watched some of the older hands and how they handled children, very cleverly enforced certain rules, but in a way that the children were not necessarily aware that rules were being enforced. It is a great privilege to be part of that program, and I am sure that I will provide further feedback as time goes on.
I have mentioned Moulden Park Primary School, and I have to mention the fantastic work that Greg Jarvis, Principal, and Bronwyn Clee, Community Officer, are doing. Bronwyn runs the FAST program, which received an award during NAIDOC week for the way that Moulden Park Primary involves the wider community in its events. It is an innovative program. Bronwyn was explaining one of the first things she did was open an exchange whereby people could bring old clothes and exchange them for other old clothes that other parents had brought in. It shows what can be done if someone can think outside the square and has a deal of enthusiasm.
I want to put on record that the culture of the school was apparent from the moment you set foot on the school grounds. The feeling was just wonderful; the children treated each other and their teachers with respect, and it was a fantastic atmosphere that could palpably be felt.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, earlier in the day, I was pleased and honoured to support the motion of the Minister for Public Employment on the Commonwealth government’s undermining of Territorians’ pay and working conditions. Great contributions were made by all members of the House.
In my contribution, I concluded by praising Henry Lawson and his strong commitment to Australia and to the union movement. I finished with a recitation of The Ballad of 1891. I would like to tell the House about The Ballad of 1891 and to give a little bit of the history to really round off my contribution. I am quoting from information on a web site:
My humble apologies to the House and to all aficionados who love Henry Lawson. The Ballad of 1891 is not Henry Lawson’s. It would have been a terrible thing had I started singing it into Hansard. We would have had them all out on strike upstairs.
I thank the Hansard and Table Office staff for their assistance in helping me find the errors of my attributions. I thank the House for giving me the opportunity this evening to correct my injustice to Helen. Nonetheless, I commend the works of Henry Lawson to each and every member and the works of Helen Palmer.
Ms McCARTHY (Arnhem): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to share with parliament the story of an extraordinary day, Thursday, 28 July 2005, in a faraway community from where we now sit.
Let me take you down the Stuart Highway some 400 km, turning east another 150 km, across the breathtaking Roper and Wilton River crossings to the community of Ngukurr. It is a day that begins with unease and conflict, with concerns between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people over the issue of alcohol permits. Many residents shared with me their thoughts on this latest issue, which divided so many and had the potential to be a division based on race.
I will side track from this day by giving a little bit of history. While the date of the recent Northern Territory election was important to those of us here in the parliament, the date of Saturday, 18 June 2005 held other significance to the people of Ngukurr. They voted on whether the alcohol permit system should continue in the community where only non-Aboriginal people held permits to drink. Those participating in the ballot were asked to vote yes or no to two questions:
About 350 people voted and 59% voted in favour of no permits. Despite mixed views on council, the ballot was accepted as valid by the Yugul Mangi Council. Not all the residents were happy, with some saying they did not have the chance to be heard. It is at this point that I return to the story of that day, Thursday, 28 July 2005.
I arrived by road while the Licensing Commission flew to Ngukurr to consult again with the community before making a final decision. The commission had separate meetings with the Community Council, police, teachers, health workers and some individuals before a public meeting was held later that afternoon. I attended that meeting so I could listen to the issues raised. It was a meeting that was well attended with about 20 speakers.
While the majority were completely against the issue of alcohol permits in Ngukurr, the views of some of the 17 permit holders were also expressed. Some spoke of the fact that if Ngukurr became a completely dry community, some people would leave the community and it will be difficult in future to recruit police, teachers or health people to the area. Others described serious problems due to alcohol and drug abuse by some community members that result in harm to family, community and individuals. I add here, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, that no permit holder was accused of breaching their permits at any stage, but the community recognised that the negative impact of alcohol was prominent in Ngukurr.
The Licensing Commission listened to all points of view. The voice of the majority of the people in Ngukurr was strong. That evening, co-incidentally, there was a visit by interstate musicians, which lifted the mood rather dramatically. It was to be a day of contrasts. The Australian Art Orchestra, directed by Paul Grabowski, had arrived to perform a musical alliance with Ruby Hunter and Archie Roach, an alliance that also included collaboration with the elders and traditional song men and women of the region.
It truly was a magnificent sight to see, and the sound was just spectacular: the sounds of the didgeridoo and clap sticks combined with the orchestra to create a musical sensation unheard of in Ngukurr. The orchestra even followed the sounds of the song men as they sang in language. It was a performance masterpiece, the melding of two cultures.
It came about because of an established relationship over five years between the Ngukurr community and contemporary music education activities within the Northern Territory and Stephen Teakle, who has acted as the catalyst of this endeavour. Over the next two years, the orchestra and the traditional song men and women of Ngukurr will continue to create a new, uniquely Australian body of music. The thing that sets this project apart from others is that they are also working to establish a studio centre for music education and archiving in Ngukurr based upon the large amount of high quality industry-ready musicians who call Ngukurr home.
Paul Grabowski and members of the orchestra and Stephen Teakle as the Northern Territory organiser believe it is necessary to leave something more tangible behind rather than just visit, perform and then leave. So they actually leave bricks and mortar behind, such as guitars, amplifiers and mixing desks so that, in time, the current generation of contemporary musicians have the tools to take on the responsibility of helping establish and manage such a centre into the future.
It gives me a deep sense of hope for the future for the people of Ngukurr to see such commitment by people within the community and those outside who seek to share their skills. It was truly a day of diversity of opinions on a complex issue like alcohol permits that had divided black and white, and yet it ended in a harmonious musical blend of black and white culture.
In closing, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the NT Licensing Commission last week brought down its decision on the liquor permits at Ngukurr. When current permits expire at the end of this month, any applications to renew will be refused. Furthermore, no fresh applications will be approved until the Ngukurr community clearly supports the reintroduction of an appropriate permit system. A regional approach to the grog issue in the Ngukurr region has also been encouraged by the NT Licensing Commission. I sincerely wish the Yugul Mangi Council well, and look forward to travelling back to Ngukurr again very soon.
Ms SACILOTTO (Port Darwin): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise this evening to speak of the fantastic events, achievements and anniversaries throughout the electorate of Port Darwin.
The Tropical Garden Spectacular 2005 was a huge success, with many different events being staged over the two days. It was my great pleasure to present the awards and prizes for the Public Housing Garden competition on behalf of minister McAdam. I was pleased to note that Dora Hunter of Stuart Park in my electorate of Port Darwin won third prize for her garden and received $150 gift voucher from Jape Homemaker Village and a lovely trophy.
Another such event saw the Port Darwin electorate team head to head with the member for Nelson’s team in the Landscape Olympics. The Nelson electorate team won the battle in the poll of public opinion, although the public took note that an introduction of contraband, also known as Wood Chickens of Nelson, tipped the scales in their favour. A great day was had by all.
As a former student of Stuart Park Primary School, I was very pleased to return recently, not as a student this time, but as the member for Port Darwin, where I met the Principal, Mr Bernie Bree, and Assistant Principal, Mr Richard Woodside who was also, might I add, my teacher in Grade 5. I am sure that he will be very impressed that I have included this today. Principal Bree showed me around the school. I was impressed by the presentation of the school, especially the cleanliness - not a paper or a piece of rubbish in sight. I commend students and staff alike on how they look after their school and ask them to keep up the good work.
I move from the younger members in my electorate to the more senior members. I was delighted to be invited to the 40th anniversary of Spillett House, the home of the Darwin Senior Citizens Association, which also celebrated its 30th year. It was an excellent day, which included lots of hard work by many of the members. Some, but not all, of the hardworking members were Brian Hilder, the President, Kit Holtham and Gwen Wilkinson. The house is an important part of our history. It opened its doors on 10 August 1965, and is named after Peter Spillett who, sadly, passed away in January this year. Peter Spillett was awarded the honour of Senior Territorian in 2005 and was a remarkable man.
Over those 40 years, Spillett House has been a hive of activity, and many Darwin residents would remember it fondly as it was where many important occasions were celebrated, including weddings, 21st birthdays and engagement parties, including that of the current president of Darwin Senior Citizens Incorporated Mr and Mrs Hilder.
The Office of Senior Territorians provided financial assistance in the form of a grant, and the committee has asked me to convey a message of thanks to Anne Coleman and Gemma Lee from that office for their assistance in organising the grant. It was a special treat that our Administrator, His Honour Mr Ted Egan, spontaneously joined in with the organ player to belt out a couple of tunes to the delight of all present.
I should also mention that there is a Seniors Expo on 20 August at Spillett House in Smith Street, primarily an information day specifically aimed at senior services. Some of the exhibitors include the U3A Group, Neighbourhood Watch, NT Carers, St John, Red Cross and the Heart Foundation.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I would like to talk about some events in my electorate.
Obviously, you would be aware that the Northern Territory has a huge difference in its electorates and the people it represents, and I would like to recount one such example of the differences that we have in the Northern Territory.
In the urban electorates, one of the priorities is the removal of apparently unsightly power poles, which has been done over the last few years and will continue. It certainly is appealing to the residents of the urban electorates. However, in my seat of Daly, we have quite a different situation: we love power poles. We do not have enough; we want more.
One of the places affected is on the Daly River. The community in the area of Wooliana Road, which has a long history, and the member for Nelson has some association with that area.
It started it off as obviously the Malakmalak and Kamu people down that way, and then the Europeans came through. They started up a lot of agricultural areas, and it has progressed since then through failed agricultural attempts. Now there are largely businesses dealing with recreational fishing and supporting the community of Nauiyu across the river. There are a lot of older residents down there, a few families, and they are great people.
In 2001 during the election campaign, I was the Labor candidate and the Labor Party made an election promise to provide power down that road and, if there was money left over, to fix the road. Each property there has its own generator and all the associated problems of the high cost of fuel, maintenance and break-downs are experienced, as they are in most regional areas. I have a vision of a good friend of mine, Norma McLeod, hand cranking a 7kVa Lister generator at the age of nearly 80, so conditions are quite poor down that way.
Obviously, Labor won the 2001 election, and works commenced. Over the years from 2001, there have been some delays in the works. They had to relocate the power house that would have powered that road from the community of Daly River up into the flood safe area, up on Wooliana Road near the entrance to the Daly River Road. That was done first, and then they started design work. There were design work problems with clearing scared sites, which was worked through with the land council and the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority.
The total cost of the project or the promise was $1m. This has blown out, and the Labor government has honoured that, which has upped the total to $1.44m at the moment. Recently, after the election, I went out to Port Keats and I knew work was being done down there. I had been actively trying to encourage progress on it. I remember driving into Daly River just on dusk and stopping at the hotel before I started to drive down the Wooliana Road. As I said, it was just on dusk and, as we were driving, I noticed these funny looking things: power poles! Kilometre after kilometre of power poles. It was just as the sun was going down, and I have never seen such a beautiful thing! That is the difference between them being an ugly sight in the northern suburbs yet such a beautiful sight down at the Daly River are.
The current situation is that they have completed the first stage of it, halfway down the road, and the second stage has been given to a contractor. We are hoping for completion in September or October. This example shows the differences in the Northern Territory. It also emphasises the Labor government’s commitment to regional development, which is a focus of this term. We are providing a bit of infrastructure that will promote businesses and lifestyle. People will not have to get up in the middle of the night to crank up the generator and pay $1.50 a litre in fuel; they will have 24-hour power and it will be cheap. They can certainly run some airconditioners in this Build-up, which I am sure will be a humdinger.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, in the Daly, we love power poles and, in September or October, when it finally happens, there will be a hell of a party when the power is switched on. I will enjoy the day as much as I possibly can, but at the same time, I will be bracing myself for the envitable phone calls when the first bat flies into the powerlines and causes an outage.
I congratulate Power and Water, the Department of Planning and Environment, the Northern Land Council, the contractors doing a fabulous job down there, the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority for all of their efforts. I also thank the residents of Wooliana Road for their patience. It has been a long time, I accept that, but it has come, and it has come within four years of a Labor government. We were nearly 30 years under the CLP, and they got absolute nothing. We have a lot more to do down there.
Finally, I thank the Labor government for investing in this project and invite everyone to come down to Wooliana Road when the power is switched on.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
PETITIONS
Lot Sizes - Suburb of Lyons
Lot Sizes - Suburb of Lyons
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 247 petitioners praying that the majority of detached family home lots in the suburb of Lyons will be 800 m or more. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders. Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory:
We the undersigned respectfully showeth that the suburb of Lyons now planned for the Defence Housing Authority,
DHA, has many house lots smaller than the standard 800 m minimum.
We the undersigned therefore humbly pray that the Northern Territory government ensure that, as prescribed by the
Darwin Town Plan, the majority of detached family home lots will be 800 m or more.
Madam SPEAKER: Are there any further petitions?
Open Space in Darwin CBD
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 325 petitioners praying for more green open space in the Darwin CBD for new residents and the Darwin public. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it confirms with the requirements of standing orders. Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read.
- To the honourable the Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory:
We the undersigned respectfully showeth that many tall residential buildings are being constructed in the Darwin CBD,
increasing the density of the population.
We the undersigned therefore humbly pray that the Northern Territory government ensure more green open space
consistent with the Planning Act for the shared use of the new residents and the Darwin public.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Darwin Cup Carnival 2005
Darwin Cup Carnival 2005
Mr STIRLING (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Madam Speaker, the 2005 Darwin Cup Carnival concluded on Monday, 1 August, with the running of the Carlton Draught Darwin Cup. Once again, the Darwin Cup Carnival proved itself to be one of the major economic catalysts on the Northern Territory calendar, and a great social event.
More than 45 000 people passed through the gates at Fannie Bay Racecourse over the eight days. TAB and bookmaker turnover exceeded $5m. Darwin Turf Club paid out over $1.1m in prize money, with the cup race itself boasting prize money of $150 000.
The carnival this year attracted several top interstate jockeys including Scott Lecky from South Australia who had just won the South Australian Apprentice Premiership. He won that championship on the last race of the racing calendar year in South Australia, and both jockeys who were level in the premiership finished first and second in that race, so it was a brilliant win for Scott to pick up that apprentice premiership. He started his career in Darwin under the tutelage of local trainer, Stephen Brown, now based at Macau. Stephen returned to Darwin with his family for Darwin Cup weekend and had a great time.
Many national celebrities take the opportunity to come to Darwin to visit at this time of year. I was most interested to see well-known - some would say controversial - bookmaker Robbie Waterhouse standing at Fannie Bay.
As always, accommodation houses have been at maximum capacity and restaurants fully booked. An estimated $50m has been injected into the local economy by locals and the many interstate visitors.
This year, full cup day television coverage was undertaken by ThoroughVisioN. The Darwin Turf Club has entered into an agreement with ThoroughVisioN to secure the televising of Darwin racing. It is a coup for the club, and will continue to assist with the national promotion of the Territory and its racing industry.
The club also extended its sponsorship agreement with Fosters Australia for a further three years, which is great news. I take this opportunity to acknowledge the sponsors of the carnival because without them, it simply would not be the success that it is. The major sponsors are Fosters Australia, Schweppes, SKYCITY, and SportingBet. There are smaller, but very important, sponsors who all play extremely important roles.
The government has negotiated a funding agreement that provides a sound financial footing to allow the industry to grow and prosper in the forthcoming years, and the government is a proud supporter of the Northern Territory racing industry.
I extend congratulations to David Bates, the local trainer of Lanson, winner of the cup, plus all the other trainers and owners involved in the carnival. In closing, I congratulate Charles Burkett, the Darwin Turf Club Committee Chairman, Des Friedrich, the Chief Executive, the committee and all staff of the Darwin Turf Club who have been involved in what has been one of the most successful carnivals to date.
Madam Speaker, it is an outstanding Territory event that keeps getting better.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I agree with minister’s comments. The carnival, for me and many Territorians, is the premier event on the calendar, one I look forward to immensely.
I suspect that the bookmakers did not have a particularly good day on cup day because most of the favourites came in, including Lanson. I am very pleased to report that for the second time in my life, I backed a winner in the cup. There was a very long line of folks waiting to collect.
In reflecting on the positive impact that racing, and particularly that event, has on the Top End economy, we also reflect upon other significant racing events that occur up and down the track. It would be beneficial if we are able to strengthen the racing industry so that more Territorians frequent the course at times other than Cup Day. Whilst it is a great event that everyone enjoys immensely, it would be useful to find ways of encouraging the racing industry to strengthen its profile and broaden its appeal so that more people frequent courses at times other than Cup Day.
Further, I recognise the work of sponsors who make the day possible and the opposition adds its words of appreciation.
I note also the career opportunities that are available through the racing industry. I hope the minister is aware of the opportunities in the racing industry and provides adequate support to apprentices and those who care for horses, in training and support behind the scenes.
Mr STIRLING (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Madam Speaker, I thank the opposition spokesman on racing for his supportive comments. In relation to training, it is an opportunity for us. It is a small industry, however, in terms of apprentice jockeys and whether we might be able to have a group training approach to it, I am not sure. We have done a fair bit of work in consultation with the industry on how we might strengthen that.
In terms of racing across the Territory, sure, the economic benefit is one thing, but it is a great part of the social fabric of the Territory. I was very disappointed a few years ago when the Timber Creek Cup fell off the calendar, and there were reasons for that. I have not given up on resurrecting that, and there are other country clubs throughout the Territory which used to race annual events. I keep them on the horizon in terms of opportunities to bring some of those events back.
Generally, the racing industry is in pretty good shape. We had a bit of a kerfuffle with Tennant Creek this year running their cup immediately after the Darwin Cup. It was not ideal timing, and the principal club ought to look at that for the future.
Seniors’ Month
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Senior Territorians): Madam Speaker, we are in the middle of another successful Seniors’ Month. This is part of my new portfolio responsibility as Minister for Senior Territorians, and it gives me particular pleasure. I have previously spoken in the House about the help and assistance I have been given by my parents and other senior members of the community who have taken the time to provide guidance and share their wisdom and memories with me. Seniors’ Month in August each year is a time when we as a community celebrate and reflect on the wonderful contributions older people have made to the Northern Territory and to Australian society.
Seniors have always been a minority group in the Northern Territory and, while the numbers of older people will grow in the coming years, our population is the youngest in Australia and this is going to continue for the foreseeable future so we especially need to treasure and celebrate the seniors of the Northern Territory.
Seniors provide us with a sense of our history. They are the guardians of our culture. It is they who pass important values and learning of their experiences on to future generations. This means that we, as a society, do not forget the important lessons of the past.
Seniors’ Month in the Northern Territory has grown from a smaller celebration that used to happen over a week to a month-long celebration of events, some organised by seniors for seniors, others supported by grants from the Office of Senior Territorians, some in town, some in the bush, a diversity of events, parties and activities held by individuals, community groups and organisations to recognise the contribution of seniors.
August is Seniors’ Month in the Northern Territory. This year, there are over 90 events on the calendar in all parts of the Territory celebrating the achievements of older people and, in particular, events that keep older people active and connected.
Successful grant applicants are chosen by a panel comprising representatives of community and interest groups, and details of events are published in all local newspapers or on the Seniors web site.
There is a suite of activities for seniors that the government supports, including practical ways to lead independent, active and healthy lives in the community. To assist older people to age well in their own homes, the government has developed a seniors’ safety program, Stay Safe. The Stay Safe program has a web site with a range of information on how to make homes safer, how seniors can feel more secure and tips on staying healthy.
Visitors to the Stay Safe web site who take a few minutes to answer yes or no to questions on the three check lists are able to see how safe their circumstances are, and how to plan for any changes necessary to make themselves more safe and secure. Although seniors are a group of people who are rapidly expanding their use of information and technology, the Stay Safe program is currently being adapted for print so it will be available for people without access to computers.
Recent changes to the Pensioner Concession Scheme are another way to assist seniors to stay connected with the community. The six-month waiting period for concessions has been abolished, so as soon as pensioners are eligible for the scheme, they can benefit immediately. More importantly, the travel component now allows card holders to use their own travel entitlement to bring family or friends from interstate or even overseas to visit them.
On 4 August, I had pleasure in launching the 2005 edition of the Senior Card General Business Directory. The Senior Card is a Territory success story. In 1999, when it was first introduced to the Territory, 200 businesses were registered. Today, more than 500 businesses support the Senior Card holders by offering discounts on goods and services. The success of the Senior Card is reliant on the private sector, and I thank the many Territory businesses which proudly support our older Territorians. TIO continues to provide generous sponsorship to the Senior Card scheme and provides a contribution of $50 towards annual private motor vehicle third party insurance for Senior Card holders.
Two business directories are produced each year so that everyone has a ready source of information about the benefits available from local businesses - from home maintenance, pet care, professional services to travel, accommodation and general retail. The complementary volume, Tourism and Leisure Business Directory, was circulated in May.
A small group of volunteers have been involved with the huge task of organising the mail-out of the directory. The assistance provided by this dedicated group of seniors will ensure that every Northern Territory Senior Card holder and participating business will receive a copy.
Seniors’ Month celebrates the very people who provide the solid base of experience and wisdom that any balanced community needs. I congratulate all those involved in making this month such a great success, and wish all seniors in the Territory a wonderful celebration.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her report. Seniors need to be shown a great deal of respect, and I want to let you all know that I am one of them. Anyone of my age qualifies as a senior …
Members interjecting.
Mrs MILLER: I am proud to say that I am.
Mr Kiely: With honours!
Mrs Miller: I have a lot to do with - I do not want any smart comments. I have much to do with the seniors in Katherine, where there is a very strong group of seniors which gathers every Wednesday. We would like to see them in a permanent place of their own. At the moment, they meet in the corner of the YMCA and, sometimes, they arrive at that room to find that it has been double-booked or someone else has it so they tend to meet in a little corner.
I have a lot of time and respect for the amount of hard work and volunteer work that seniors do. I particularly refer to Katherine because they do a lot of work and ask for very little.
Seniors tend not to want to make a loud noise about anything. One of the seniors who does make a lot of noise - and he does it in jest, of course - is the person I spoke about in the adjournment debate last night: Bob Mackie.
The Katherine Mayor hosted a morning tea to begin Seniors’ Week this year. Katherine Town Council has gone a bit mean with their money, but they decided that one of the things that was really important for them to do this year was to make sure that they recognise the seniors in Katherine.
I congratulate the minister for her report, and I welcome and applaud all seniors in the Northern Territory.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, being the most senior member of this parliament and definitely a senior, I have to express a bit of interest in this event.
I am concerned, though, about the way funding for these grants occurred this year. As the minister knows, there were a huge number of applications, but the panel was, again, Darwin-based. Of the three members, there was no representation out of Darwin. The basis of the criteria was that it was to be an active event.
Our Senior Citizens Club, which we should promoting and encouraging, submitted an application to have a bus trip to Ooraminna for lunch and back again, and I consider that a justifiable application. Unfortunately, they missed out and there was a lot of concern voiced in Alice Springs at the way the funding was allocated.
The Seniors’ Dinner Dance also was not funded, but thanks to Lions and me, we were still able to supplement the cost and run it.
The minister said there are 90 events. There is almost an assumption that the minister is responsible for funding all those 90 events, but that is not so.
Minister, in your reply, could you tell us how many of these events were funded by government? I think you will find there were not many. Perhaps you could also tell us how many were funded in Alice Springs because that is something in which people in Alice Springs are interested.
It seems to me the Berrimah Line is alive and well because of the way these applications were treated. One of the members who was on the panel suggested that next year, there might be more consultation with people in regions to find out where their priorities lie.
Having said that, Seniors’ Month is a great time to celebrate being a senior. It is good that the government puts emphasis on that. I notice in my electorate there are more and more seniors.
I ask the minister to seriously consider the issue of a village for self-funded retirees because we want to keep them in the Territory and not let them go away.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Senior Territorians): Madam Speaker, I thank the members for Katherine and Braitling for their comments on this report.
There is a whole raft of issues that the member for Braitling raised. I do not have time in my reply to address them all, but funding for Seniors’ Month is done by the Office of Senior Territorians. The panel includes bodies like COTA and representatives from the Seniors Advisory Council.
When I talk about the 90 events, it is fantastic that we are building every year in terms of the number of events. I did say that some of them are funded by government; many of them are events done by seniors for seniors. I thanked the private sector and, for many of these events, the private sector needs to be applauded because that sector’s involvement has grown every year.
I am not saying that government funds them all, but our funding complements what is happening out there, which is building and making it bigger. I have noted the issues that you raised, member for Braitling, and will see what we can work on.
Multicultural Affairs Sponsorship Program
Mr VATSKALIS (Multicultural Affairs): Madam Speaker, the Northern Territory government is committed to fostering an environment in which people from different communities are able to forge a common identity as Territorians. Our government is equally committed to valuing the Territory’s rich diversity and the contributions of individuals from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds.
Examples of support provided to our multicultural communities include funding under the Multicultural Affairs Sponsorship Program, the Linguistic Awards, and the Charles See Kee Awards.
For 2005-06, funding of $737 000 has been made available under the Multicultural Affairs Sponsorship Program, which is an increase from $712 000 in 2004-05. I recently announced the decision of round one of this program. The demand for grants was higher than ever, with 45 applications being received, and a total of 30 grants approved totalling $312 000.
The approved grants range from funding for festivals such as the Alice Springs Mabuhay Multicultural Association’s Barrio Fiesta to innovative one-off projects such as the African- Australia Friendship Association’s initiative to establish a skill training project for women within the African community.
Three applications that would ordinarily be considered in round two of the Multicultural Affairs Sponsorship Program were accepted in round one. This was to allow the applicants, in the case of the Glenti and India at Mindil, a greater period of time in which to plan such large scale events with a degree of certainty about Northern Territory government funding assistance, and in the case of the Lion Dance Group application, to alleviate previous problems that have occurred with the timing of Chinese New Year and the timing of the announcement of round two decisions.
In line with the government’s commitment as set out in our multicultural policy, Building on the Territory’s Diversity, significant operational funding has been provided to both the Multicultural Council of the Northern Territory and the Multicultural Community Services of Central Australia.
Members may also be aware that I recently announced the recipients of the 2004-05 Charles See Kee Awards. This is the second year of these awards. In March this year, they were re-named in recognition of the great work Charles See Kee did in the Northern Territory in support of multiculturalism.
The main aim of these awards is to recognise outstanding Territorians and organisations that give their time to help the development of multiculturalism in the Northern Territory. Selection of recipients for the award is based on criteria and is made by an independent panel. This year, the panel consisted of Michelle Castagna, Beryl Mulder, Adam Lowe and Maria Koukouvas. I would like to record my appreciation for the efforts of these individuals and for the time they gave to consider these awards.
The recipients of the Charles See Kee Awards were:
Miss Alice Chang in the category of an individual under 25 years old. Alice has been actively involved
in an array of multicultural events and sits on many committees, including the Executive Council for the
Multicultural Council of the Northern Territory, the Australian Medical Association, the Chief Minister’s
Round Table and the Medical Consumers Group;
Association of the Northern Territory. John is to be commended for his ongoing commitment to multiculturalism;
Association of the Northern Territory. This fabulous concert provides an opportunity for youth and the broader
community to participate and view multiculturalism in action.
On behalf of the Northern Territory government, I congratulate all recipients of the awards as well as those who were nominated but not successful on this occasion for their continued effort in promoting multiculturalism in the Northern Territory.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report on the activities that this government has undertaken with multiculturalism in the Northern Territory.
We all appreciate that the many ethnic groups in the Northern Territory deserve the support that they receive from governments of both persuasions. They have made a significant contribution to our community.
What I find sadly missing from the minister’s report is the issue about Islam and the attack that people of Islamic religion have come under during these troubled times in the world. That is something that I would have preferred the Minister for Multicultural Affairs to be outspoken about; state that we support the people in the Northern Territory, people of all religions, and maintain that they should be living in our community in safety and be very welcome.
The way Islam is being attacked in Australia at the moment is unfortunate because people of Islamic religion who live in the Northern Territory have contributed so much to our community and have been positive citizens.
Minister, I would have preferred you to talk about Understanding Islam, an event conducted on 11 August, between 10 am and 12 pm, to explain to all of us in the Territory what Islam is about. The Territory government should be picking up on the posters that the Islamic Association have produced that have been on display out here in the foyer explaining the parallels between Islam and Christianity, showing people that there is great unity in our beliefs. That way, we will promote much more positive attitudes between one another. That is more important, although I agree that it is important to continue our support for the other ethnic communities.
Mr VATSKALIS (Multicultural Affairs): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his comments, despite the fact that he always finds something negative to say. It does not matter whether it is a good story; he will be negative.
The Territory has been a bright example for the rest of Australia. Irrespective of what has happened around the world, from 11 September to date, we have never had an incident of an attack against a mosque. Rather, on many occasions, members of this Assembly have been welcomed in mosques, and have taken part in celebrations in mosques. I have visited the mosques in Darwin and in Alice Springs. We have provided monetary and moral assistance to the Islamic community and the mosques.
I advise the House that in the coming few days, I am having a meeting with the Islamic community in my office to discuss how we can further promote the peaceful co-existence between all religions here in the Northern Territory. The Territory is a multicultural and tolerant society and will continue to remain so.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
MOTION
Select Committee on Substance Abuse in the Community – Appointment of Membership
Select Committee on Substance Abuse in the Community – Appointment of Membership
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that:
(1) a committee to be known as the Select Committee on Substance Abuse in the Community be appointed
in accordance with the terms of reference circulated to members;
government members, two members of the opposition and one Independent member, nominated to
the Speaker; and
(3) the following members, unless otherwise ordered, be appointed to the Select Committee on Substance
Abuse in the Community: Ms Anderson, Ms Sacilotto, Mr Knight, Mrs Miller, Mr Mills and Mrs Braham; and
- the committee shall elect a government member as chairman.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Select Committee on Substance Abuse in the Community - Terms of Reference
Select Committee on Substance Abuse in the Community - Terms of Reference
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business)(by leave): I move that:
- (1) The Select Committee on Substance Abuse in the Community be empowered,
unless otherwise ordered, to inquiry into and report on the issue of substance abuse
in the community, in particular:
- (a) ascertain community concern about the use and abuse of licit and illicit substances;
and, as far as possible, taking into account regional, age, gender, other demographic
characteristics and ethnic factors;
special reference to the wellbeing of individuals and communities and to the demands
placed upon government and non-government services;
non-government agencies to deal with issues directly or indirectly related to substance
abuse;
community or parts of that community, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing:
- (i) the accessibility/availability of licit and illicit substances within communities;
- (f) appropriate policies and services for the prevention and treatment of substance abuse in the
Northern Territory.
- (2) The committee or any subcommittee be empowered to send for persons, papers and records,
to sit in public or in private session notwithstanding any adjournment of the Assembly, to adjourn
from place to place and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence
taken and make such interim recommendations as it may deem fit, and to publish information
pertaining to its activities from time to time.
(3) The Chairman of the committee may, from time to time, appoint another member of the committee
to be Deputy Chairman of the committee, and that the member so appointed act as Chairman of the
committee at any time when there is no Chairman or the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the
committee.
(4) The committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of two or more of its members and to
refer to any such subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine and that the
quorum of a subcommittee shall be two.
(5) The committee be empowered to publish from day to day any such papers and evidence as may be ordered
by it, and, unless otherwise ordered by the committee, a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as
take place in public.
(6) The committee be empowered to consider, disclose and publish the minutes of proceedings, evidence taken
and records of the former committee of the ninth Assembly and the former committee on the Use and Abuse
of Alcohol by the Community in previous Assemblies.
(7) The foregoing provisions of the resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with standing orders, have effect
notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.
MAGISTRATES AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 15)
(Serial 15)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Magistrates Act to provide that a person who has reached the age of 65 years but who has not yet reached the age of 70 years can be appointed as a relieving or acting magistrate under the act. Section 9A of the act currently provides that the Attorney-General may appoint a person to be a relieving magistrate for a period not exceeding six months where that person is eligible for appointment to the offices of Chief Magistrate, Deputy Chief Magistrate or Stipendiary Magistrate under section 4(3) of the act and where the efficient administration of justice requires such an appointment.
Similarly, section 9 allows for the appointment of a person who is eligible for appointment to office under section 4(3) to act as a magistrate during a vacancy, absence or inability in that office. Section 4(3) of the act provides for the Administrator to appoint people to the offices of Chief Magistrate, Deputy Chief Magistrate and Stipendiary Magistrate.
Section 5 states that a person is not eligible to be appointed to office under section 4(3) unless: they have been admitted to practice as a legal practitioner in an Australian jurisdiction or certain other similar jurisdictions such as England and New Zealand for at least five years, or they have been a magistrate in one of those jurisdictions and have the necessary educational qualifications prescribed for admission to practice in the Territory.
Section 7(2) of the act further provides that a person who has reached the age of 65 years cannot be appointed to office under section 4(3). Under the current wording contained in the Magistrates Act it is not entirely clear what ‘eligible for appointment to office’ under section 4(3) means. That is, it is not clear whether ‘eligibility’ under section 4(3) only refers to the matters set out in section 5 covering ‘eligibility for appointment’, or whether it has a wider interpretation and includes the age restrictions set out under section 7(2) of the act.
Accordingly, it is not clear whether a person who fulfils the eligibility criteria set out in section 5 but who is over 65 years old can be appointed a relieving or acting magistrate.
The amendments to the act proposed by this bill will make it clear that retired magistrates can be appointed as acting or relieving magistrates. This will allow the courts to make use of the valuable experience of retired magistrates from time to time when a temporary vacancy or absence or a temporary increase in case workload requires.
This bill seeks to clarify the meaning of the term ‘eligible’ by providing that a person who has reached the age of 65 years but who has not reached the age of 70 years can be appointed as a relieving or acting magistrate under the act.
That concludes my explanation of the bill. I will table the explanatory memorandum that accompanies the bill. Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise you of the presence in the gallery of local, interstate and overseas visitors as part of the Parliament House Public Tour Program. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend a very warm welcome to our visitors.
Members: Hear, hear!
MOTION
Commonwealth Government’s Industrial Relations Legislative Agenda
Commonwealth Government’s Industrial Relations Legislative Agenda
Dr BURNS (Public Employment): Madam Speaker, I move that this Assembly:
- (a) express its concern with the Commonwealth government’s industrial relations
legislative agenda;
worker will be worse off as a result of the Commonwealth’s planned industrial
relations legislation;
government regarding the proposed legislation;
(d) call upon the Commonwealth government not to reduce the jurisdiction of the
independent umpire, the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, the AIRC;
(e) call upon the Northern Territory members of the House of Representatives and
Senate to oppose and vote against the legislation that reduces the working
conditions of Territorians; and
(f) through the office of the Speaker, forward the terms of this motion and associated
debate to the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives,
the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in the Commonwealth parliament.
On 5 August 2005, I attended a Workplace Relations Ministers Council, or WRMC, and discussed these issues with Commonwealth, state and territory ministers. I shall deal with both the Prime Ministerial statement, and the Workplace Relations Ministerial Council in detail.
The evidence is clearly and squarely that certain recurring themes are emerging. I believe the agenda of the Commonwealth government is as follows: the removal of rights and working conditions of workers; removal of powers of the independent umpire; and a lack of consultation with stakeholders and government. Through my speech today, I believe I will adequately and amply really reinforce that this is in fact the case.
First, I will turn to the ministerial council that I attended on 5 August in Melbourne. It was very interesting for me as the new Minister for Public Employment to be introduced to my counterparts from other jurisdictions at such a crucial stage. Whilst other matters were on the agenda, discussion mainly focused on the upcoming legislative program announced in the Prime Ministerial statement to which I referred before.
At the WRMC, we were advised by the federal Workplace Relations minister that legislation will be introduced into the Commonwealth parliament in October 2005 but, at this stage, details could not be provided as the legislation had not been drafted. The federal minister asked the state ministers to hand over their industrial relations power. The mood of the meeting was cordial, but it was clear that the federal minister was uncomfortable with the questions being asked and statements being made by the very experienced team of state and territory ministers.
My colleagues from other jurisdictions suggested that there has been a lack of consultation, there would be no opportunity to examine the legislation properly before it is introduced into federal parliament in October, that it is inappropriate for the Commonwealth to be asking the states to handover powers in the absence of any detail, and the various jurisdictions were prepared to address any real issues the Commonwealth was trying to resolve. Also, it was suggested that the details outlined in the Prime Ministerial statement meant that many workers will have their entitlements reduced and that there were serious limitations to the constitutional powers being relied upon by the Commonwealth.
Ministers also called upon the federal Workplace Relations minister to give an undertaking similar to that which is the subject of this motion. It is a matter of record that the federal minister declined the offer to make the assurance that no Australian worker will be worse off as a result of the upcoming legislation, and the corollary to declining this offer is that it is intended that some Australian workers will be worse off. This is a copy of what Mr Andrews …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr BURNS: … was asked to sign, and it is a quote from John Howard in 1996. It says:
- Under no circumstances will the Howard government create a wages system that will cause the take-home
pay of Australians to be cut.
Following on, he also said:
- Under a Howard government, you cannot be worse off but you can be better off.
I give this rock-solid guarantee: our policy will not cause a cut in the take-home pay of Australian workers.
John Howard, 1996. Here was the request of Mr Andrews:
- I give my written guarantee to all states and territories that no worker will be worse off under the Commonwealth
changes to industrial relations.
Kevin Andrews declined to sign this and we can take inference that the rock-solid guarantee given by John Howard in 1996 is probably rock salt. It has dissolved; it is not there. There is an agenda by the Howard government to cut the real take-home pay of workers in this country.
In light of the offer by state and territory ministers to cooperatively address whatever issues are said to exist the federal minister was also asked what was the rationale for the proposal. In other words, the state and territory ministers said: ‘Okay, there is a problem with this. These are radical changes that are being proposed here, taking away industrial relations powers from the states, neutering the Industrial Relations Commission under constitutional powers of the Commonwealth. Why are you doing this? If there are issues here, let us work through them. Let us know what the issues are. Can you tell us what the issues are? What is the problem?’
Mr Mills interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Blain!
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, Mr Andrews could not answer that question. When he was asked: ‘Why are you introducing these radical changes to workplace relations?’, his response was that we needed to be economically competitive and made reference to China and India. The Prime Minister has also made reference to China and India when justifying the legislative change. We have been told it is all about maintaining standards of living in Australia, but the comparison is being made directly to China and India by the Commonwealth government. One hopes that Australian workers will not be expected to compete with China and India on wages because our skills shortage problem may just worsen a little. The response, however, does highlight the low wage, low skill and low trust policy prescription being advocated by the Commonwealth government.
I made two points on behalf of the Territory at that meeting. First, I inquired where, in the last federal election campaign, was this industrial relations agenda articulated. Second, I indicated our concern as a Territory with the linking of funding to the implementation of the Commonwealth government’s agenda. The federal minister remained silent of both counts so it would be reasonable to conclude that his failure to respond meant that there was no mention of this agenda in the election campaign because they might have been asked to give the same assurance, that no worker would be worse off, and that the Commonwealth government would be linking funding to the advancement of their agenda.
They are already doing that through roads and education funding, so basically they are twisting the arms of the states and territories. We are particularly at risk because 80% of our funding comes via the Commonwealth government, not own-source revenue. So they will use it as a big stick to try to implement their agenda.
I found the Western Australia experience particularly interesting in relation to what is known as the second wave of industrial relations reform proposed by the Prime Minister because Western Australia has had this in place for some time as a legacy from the Court government. My colleague from Western Australia, John Kobelke, Minister for Consumer and Employment Protection, held a shadow portfolio during the period of the Court Liberal government and was able to tell us of the devastation to people.
One story that stuck in my mind was that of a bus driver who came to see the minister. The bus driver’s job had been privatised and the new contractor made the bus driver sign an offer that, of course, he could not refuse: sign the individual workplace agreement on offer or you do not have a job. That was the choice he was given. The bus driver signed the workplace agreement and as a result of the ensuing loss of income could no longer meet the repayments for his house mortgage. As a consequence the driver lost his home. That means the financial security of that individual had been completely destroyed by the brave new world of industrial relations in Western Australia.
The macro level changes brought about in the West are worthy of note. The minimum wage ended up $50 per week less in Western Australia than in the rest of the country. Some of the other changes brought about by the Court government reforms were: first, a casual loading of 15% versus 20% elsewhere; second, a reduction in the number of conditions that were included in workplace agreements; the Court government’s second wave stipulated no more than nine core conditions to agreements; there were severe restrictions on taking protected industrial action; ballots requiring 75% of the work force to vote; restriction on the right of entry for union officials; and restriction of the powers of the Western Australian Industrial Commission.
It is evident that the proven failure of the West is being foisted on an unwilling Australia. The Prime Minister is on record as saying that he wants the Western Australian system of the 1990s to apply to the rest of the country. The Prime Minister is willing, however, to go even further than the Court government by reducing the number of conditions that underpin agreements to five compared with nine in Western Australia in the 1990s. I urge members opposite to consider the real and demonstrable effect of what is being proposed by the Prime Minister rather than blindly follow an ideological agenda.
I will turn now to the Prime Ministerial statement on Workplace Relations. On 26 May 2005, the Prime Minister delivered a statement concerning Workplace Relations. The significance of that statement was that it manifested the Commonwealth government’s agenda for change to industrial relations legislation. The Prime Minister’s statement is truly significant, as there has been no consultation with states, territories, unions, community groups, or, with the exception of a privileged few, most industry groups.
Moreover, much of what was articulated in the Prime Ministerial statement was not the subject of any discussion by the Commonwealth government prior to the most recent federal election. In other words, I do not believe there is a mandate for the changes being proposed, nor has there been any attempt to justify the changes. All that the Commonwealth government can say is that their radical attack on the industrial relations system is to maintain our level of prosperity. That is political rhetoric, but there is no detail as to how and why a reduction of workers’ rights and working conditions improve prosperity.
Both the Prime Minister and Minister for Workplace Relations have mentioned the need to be competitive and that India and China are expanding as major economic powers. There are two difficulties associated with this logic: first, we have always been required to compete on an international footing; and second, as previously stated, it is not feasible or desirable for us to compete with India and China on labour costs.
Five key elements were announced by the Prime Minister in his statement: attack the processes for setting minimum wages and conditions; attack on enterprise agreement making processes; reduction in allowable matters to be considered in workplace agreements – that is in the awards and in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission; virtual exclusion for most private sector workers of unfair dismissal provisions; and undermining state systems and imposition of a national system.
There are other matters that the Prime Minister foreshadowed in this statement. Of those other matters, perhaps the most distinctly alarming proposal, given the importance of the construction industry to the Territory, is the attack on building and construction workers and their unions.
Madam Speaker, I would like to move through the five major issues that were raised in the Prime Ministerial statement and deal with each one in order.
First, minimum wages and conditions: among the objectives of the Commonwealth government is to remove the power to set minimum wages from the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. The intention is to replace this specific role with a new tribunal called the Australian Fair Pay Commission. The AIRC is an independent tribunal that operates to the benefit of employers and employees. It is open and transparent. The big question that surrounds the removal of the power to set minimum wages from the AIRC is: why? Why is it being done?
The AIRC has served Australia well for over 100 years. The AIRC has been awarding modest increases to minimum wages, the most recent being $17 per week. The reason for the Commonwealth government’s proposal for a new so-called fair pay commission is that the Commonwealth government thinks that the AIRC is being too generous in setting wages and conditions. What other reason could there be?
A range of areas of employment in the Territory traditionally rely on minimum wages set by awards of the AIRC. Occupations such as shop assistants, bus drivers, gardeners, hair dressers, clerks, security officers, child care workers and aged care workers will be potentially disadvantaged by any reduction to or delay in future minimum wage increases.
The award system has also provided benefits for employers, particularly small employers, without the resources to negotiate the conditions of employment and rates of pay with their own employees on a regular basis. The ability to know that there is going to be a rate for a particular occupation and that rate is not going to be undercut by the competition has been of assistance to those businesses without the inclination to go into battle with their own work force every couple of years. It appears that the Commonwealth government has little regard for the utility of the award system and is driving small business towards AWAs whether they like it or not.
The second area of the Prime Ministerial statement was in relation to agreement making and AWAs. Chief among the objectives of the Commonwealth government is to expand the use of Australian Workplace Agreements, or AWAs. Embarrassed by the low uptake of AWAs, less than 3% of the work force, the Commonwealth government is hell-bent on them being thrust upon employers and employees. There has been a lot of hyperbole from the Commonwealth government concerning the effect of AWAs on workers. The Commonwealth government was for some time crowing about the higher rates of pay contained in AWAs. The Commonwealth government has since stopped making this claim in the face of academic research being undertaken and a dramatic decline in the average wage of workers under AWAs.
Professor David Peetz of Griffith University is the author of a paper titled The Impact on Workers of Australian Workplace Agreements and the Abolition of the No Disadvantage Test. The Commonwealth government does not release any statistics on AWAs and the assertion that workers are paid better under AWAs was based on ABS aggregate figures. The Office of the Employment Advocate used to release figures to the University of Sydney but after a study indicated that wage increases were less for workers under AWAs, they stopped providing the data.
Professor Peetz identified a range of reasons why the claim made by minister Andrews that AWAs provide for higher rates of pay than collective agreements is unable to be sustained. Among the comparatively small number of workers employed under AWAs, there is a disproportionate number of managerial workers on AWAs. This is the biggest single factor boosting the average pay of AWA workers, according to Professor Peetz. In order to increase the number of workers on AWAs, the Commonwealth government has placed all its senior public servants on AWAs, and we had the sight of people in Darwin working for minister Andrews’ department going out and striking on this very issue because they were being pushed on to AWAs, so even his own department is not happy about this move.
Another reason is that the hours worked by workers on AWAs are longer than those on collective agreements. The average used by the Commonwealth government to substantiate the claim is taken on a weekly rate, not an hourly rate. Even if we were comparing the same groups of workers, workers under AWAs are working longer for their pay.
Also, the statistical average rate of pay for employees on AWAs is boosted by the number of employees on AWAs being concentrated in some of the higher earning industries such as mining. This is not because of the AWAs, but rather because of the amount they earn. It was very interesting that the Western Australian minister said that when you compare miners in the mining industry in Western Australian and their wages with miners elsewhere in Australia, Western Australian workers are earning 8% less. So even those higher-earning people, like miners, on AWAs, have gradually, with time, had their conditions eroded so they are 8% behind miners elsewhere in Australia.
When the statistics that the federal Employment and Workplace Relations minister was quoting were taken, a large number of low individual contracts were in state jurisdictions, particularly Western Australia. Employers have now chosen AWAs in the federal jurisdiction with a Western Australian Labor government in power, removing legislation in the state jurisdiction and, as a result, the average rate of pay for AWA workers has decreased.
The term ‘collective agreement’ used in the Commonwealth government’s statistics includes non-union agreements, about 7% of collective agreements. Non-union collective agreements have provided consistently lower rates of pay than their union counterparts.
In fact, Professor Peetz identified a range of other very interesting statistics concerning AWAs. First, non-managerial male workers on AWAs receive 2% less than their counterparts on collective agreements. Women on AWAs receive 11% less compared with women covered by collective agreements. Casual workers on AWAs receive 15% less than casual workers on collective agreements, and permanent part-time workers on AWAs receive 25% less than permanent part-time workers on collective agreements.
It is clear that AWAs disadvantage the most vulnerable workers in the community who have the least capacity to bargain with their employer, and women in particular fare badly under AWAs. That may be the objective of the Commonwealth government, but it is certainly not an objective that is shared by the Martin Labor government. We believe in a fair go for Territory workers. Even if one compares industries and occupations where workers traditionally have had some bargaining power, for example mining, AWAs have produced worse results over time. While some financial incentives were used to initially get workers onto AWAs, the long-term effect has been to reduce wages compared with collective agreements. In addition, when considering relative rates of pay, the conditions lost by workers under AWAs have not been taken into consideration.
In 2004, a comprehensive analysis of industrial agreements was undertaken by the Melbourne University Centre for Employment and Labour Relations Law. Researchers noted some AWAs included clauses that, first, removed all forms of leave, required employees to work at any hour of the day or night on any day of the week on ordinary rates of pay, and forced workers to work up to 58 hours a week without overtime. It is clear that AWAs have produced a result of worse conditions of employment and lower rates of pay, but the few protections for workers faced with AWAs will be decreased even further if the Commonwealth government’s intentions are implemented.
AWAs are intended to pass a ‘no disadvantage’ test compared with the award. The Prime Minister is proposing that AWAs only have to include the five minimum conditions: a minimum rate of pay of $12.75 an hour; eight days sick leave; four weeks annual leave; unpaid parental leave; and weekly working hours.
Another suggestion contained in the Prime Ministerial statement is to remove the power of the AIRC to certify collective agreements, and give this power to the politically-motivated institution of the Office of the Employee Advocate. This removes the objective and independent scrutiny of agreements that have been exercised in a proper fashion by the AIRC. The Office of the Employment Advocate, by contrast, is a renowned rubber stamp that has no concern for the protection of workers’ rights. Coupled with the Commonwealth government’s agenda of moving workers to inferior AWAs, it is an attack on the award system, the base from which workplace agreements are made.
I now come to awards. The Workplace Relations Act was introduced by the Howard government. The 1996 act severely restricts the Industrial Relations Commission’s power to make awards, and probably as importantly, to hear and settle disputes by conciliation and arbitration. The Commonwealth government’s agenda is to remove another four allowable matters from the AIRC’s award-making powers, namely jury service, notice of termination, long service leave, and superannuation.
It has also been suggested that skill-based career structures will be removed from awards. This means that, irrespective of a worker’s level of skill or qualifications, the award will only provide for one minimum rate of pay. This is truly reverting to the lowest common denominator and, in an environment of skill shortage, is clearly a wrong move to be making, and that is, to be taking away the incentive for workers to obtain more skill.
The theme of attacking the standing of the AIRC continues. Whilst winding back the dispute settlement powers of the AIRC, the Commonwealth government wants to virtually remove the capacity of the commission to protect workers who are unfairly sacked.
Unfair dismissal legislation is a remedy available to workers in almost all advanced economies. The OECD recently concluded that the Australian legislative framework is amongst the least onerous of all OECD nations. The current unfair dismissal legislation was introduced as late as 1994. Soon after, a cap was placed on the amount of money that could be awarded and high income earners were excluded from making claims. Whilst the original legislation had its critics, a recent poll identified that 70% of Australians were opposed to its removal.
Very few workers avail themselves of the remedy of unfair dismissal. In the Territory last year, it was less that 0.2% of the work force. There is no evidence to substantiate that removal of unfair dismissal rights would create employment, and this is what the Commonwealth government has been saying: ‘Okay, if we remove unfair dismissal rights, it is going to create a whole lot of jobs’. Well, I do not believe that.
I now move to a national system. There could be some merit to one system of industrial relations in Australia. The Territory probably does benefit from the lack of confusion associated with overlapping state and federal industrial relations systems. The problem is that the Commonwealth government, because of constitutional limitations, would never be able to cover all employees. Estimates range from 65% to 80% of employees who could be covered by any federal system that might be created. That means as many as 35% of the work force will remain covered by state systems, irrespective of legislation introduced by the Commonwealth government.
Whilst this is not an argument that directly affects the Territory, it is a shameless grab for power by the Commonwealth government, and it demonstrates a sweeping arrogance now that the Coalition has control of the Senate. The Commonwealth government would be better served by attempting to talk through a national system with all state and territory governments rather than mounting a hostile takeover.
I turn now to other matters. One issue that cannot be ignored is the attack on building unions. The Commonwealth government has indicated that the bill previously rejected by the Senate concerning the building and construction industry will pass without amendment. The proposed building and construction legislation is, to say the least, draconian. The previous bill proposed compelling AWAs, restricting union officials’ right of entry and severely restricting protected industrial action. There is no justification for the changes sought. We do not suffer from any serious industrial problems in the construction industry in the Territory, but this could all change as a result of this legislation being considered.
The Northern Territory government has a very strong response to the proposals by the Commonwealth government. We have recently decided to investigate what can be done about the agenda being promoted by the Commonwealth government. In that regard, we stand shoulder to shoulder with other state and territory jurisdictions in our opposition to the attack on workers’ rights and conditions and the effect of removal of the independent umpire.
The Commissioner for Public Employment has established a working group to investigate what avenues are available to the Northern Territory government in order to combat the adverse effects for Territory workers. It is my intention to further report to this House as the Northern Territory government’s response develops. I will also report to members on the detail and impact of the Commonwealth government’s legislation as it emerges.
I often relate the story of how unionism is entrenched as part of my beliefs. I have been a unionist for much of my working life. My grandmother was widowed in World War I and left to bring up her two daughters on her own. She worked in the garment industry and relied on the union. She had two pillars in her life: one was the Catholic Church; and the other was the union. She relied on the union to ensure that her modest wages were kept enough to have her family fed.
She related the story to me that the boss used to stand behind them with a stop watch. She got up, put her work down, along with the others, and said: ‘We will do a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay.’ These were proud people, and they fought with their union for their conditions. It is very important and it is something of which we should never lose sight: what we have inherited from others who have had to fight for these conditions that the Commonwealth government wants to erode now that it has control of the Senate.
Many would say that we have come a long way since the time of my grandmother; now workers can work with dignity and receive appropriate pay and conditions. To some extent this is true. However, many of the things workers take for granted have been achieved through the existing industrial relations system. It served Australia well for over 100 years and now all of this is under threat. Be under no illusion: the Commonwealth government’s radical agenda will reduce the living standard of those members of society who are most vulnerable.
The Commonwealth government is about to embark on an unparalleled propaganda exercise to sell their radical agenda to an unconvinced electorate. The figure of $20m is being bandied about.
I ask the question: if this agenda is so good, why does it take millions of dollars to sell it? I am sure that other speakers from this side will amplify these concerns. I urge members to make this simple request of the Prime Minister and do what we can do to try to protect the most vulnerable in our work force.
Madam Speaker, I commend the motion to the House.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, thank God the minister has finished! What drivel! What drivel!
In my response, I take pleasure in dealing with some facts, which the minister, of course, and his good union Labor colleagues will not like, but it is appropriate that I deal with them. I look forward to going through my contribution probably with less passion than the minister. I understand his passion. He obviously has union blood running though his veins, and good on him! The best of luck to him, but passion about issues of a political nature should be measured against the need to be informed, the need to be sensible, the need to be considered. Whilst I respect the minister’s passion, I do not respect his lack of thoughtful consideration of the facts.
In any event, it is interesting that this is the second time in two days that I rise to respond to a government motion that amounts to politicking. In this case, it is a scare campaign. It is a scare campaign, and make no mistake that this motion is about the government doing its bidding for all of their Labor friends all around the country, including their Labor friends in the ACTU. This is about scaremongering.
Members of the Australian Labor Party could get jobs as extras in a horror movie. They are so good at scaremongering. The fact is that there is no legislation before the parliament so the minister is in fantasy land, talking about what might be, what could happen. Minister, I am going to pull you back into the world in which I live and on to the planet that I am on. It is unfortunate that you are not on the same planet.
The minister has called on this Assembly to express its concern about the Commonwealth government’s industrial relations agenda. I think it is a reasonable question to ask: why is it that the Labor government, two months from its election, is so obsessed with federal issues? Two months after an election, I would have thought a fairly keen, recently elected, unprecedented majority sort of a government might be interested in going back to their check list to check off all of the promises that they made during the election. Maybe it is arrogance. There could be a bit of arrogance creeping in. Maybe they say: ‘Well, we have four years. The Chief Minister, she does not have to bother to turn up, she can go to Indonesia; we still have 18’.
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition well knows that she cannot reflect on the presence or absence of a member of this House, and I ask her to withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: That is correct. There is a point of order. You need to withdraw those comments.
Ms CARNEY: May I speak to the point of order, Madam Speaker, or in the alternative, seek your clarification?
Madam SPEAKER: What is your point?
Ms CARNEY: The clarification I seek, and we touched on the issue yesterday, was that the government specifically sought and obtained a leave of absence …
Mr Stirling: As required under standing orders!
Ms CARNEY: If I could finish. Sought and obtained a leave of absence for the Chief Minister. It is very much on the Parliamentary Record that she is absent. In light of that, I inquire as to why it is objectionable for me to refer to her absence, which was leave of absence that the government sought.
Mr Stirling: Because it is in the standing orders.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms CARNEY: That is the point of clarification.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, Leader of the Opposition. I did seek advice yesterday from the Clerk regarding this matter, and the standing order is simply that you cannot reflect on the presence or absence of any member.
Mr Stirling: Yes, you should read them.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I pick up on the interjection of the Acting Chief Minister who is so into providing me with gratuitous advice. It is going to be a long four years, Madam Speaker. The Acting Chief Minister should know right here, right now that while he feels very comfortable providing me with his advice, I do not propose to take any of it. You can fire away your churlish, silly comments, but I would be advising you, Acting Chief Minister, to save your breath.
In any event, perhaps it is a touch of arrogance on the part of the Labor government that they are putting to one side all of the issues they raised in the election. I thought that they felt very strongly about them; perhaps that is not the case. They are absolutely obsessed with getting stuck into the Commonwealth government and potentially risking whatever good relationship there might be with the Commonwealth government. I make that point, but urge you to proceed somewhat carefully.
Mr Stirling: I will treat that gratuitous advice in the same way you treat mine.
Ms CARNEY: If you want to have a go at the Commonwealth government then that is your prerogative. Where appropriate, we will be with you.
Mr Stirling: I thought you might be worth listening to.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Ms CARNEY: It is good that the Acting Chief Minister is obviously looking to leave the Chamber, Madam Speaker, because I can then get on with my comments.
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: You need to speak from your chair, Acting Chief Minister.
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Madam Speaker! To the Leader of the Opposition, it has just been pointed out that it is in standing orders as to whether she can refer to the absence or presence of members in the Chamber, so I ask for it to be withdrawn.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, please withdraw the reference to …
Ms Carney: Well, Madam Speaker …
Madam SPEAKER: You cannot speak sitting in your chair, Leader of the Opposition.
Ms CARNEY: I will withdraw it happily, Madam Speaker. Goodbye, Deputy Chief Minister.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition!
Ms CARNEY: Returning to the issues at hand, the obsession with getting stuck into the Commonwealth government is to be noted.
This debate, however, needs some consideration of what is the Commonwealth government’s industrial relations agenda. The government has such little interest in matters federal on some occasions that we see the inconsistent approach of this government. If you look at the uranium mining issue only a week or so ago, the Minister for Mines and Energy abdicates the Territory’s role in uranium mining, so it is having a each-way bet. It is saying: ‘We are really interested in this one, but with uranium, no, you come and take the decision away from us’. Can you at least be consistent?
Mr Henderson: Wrong, wrong! Read the legislation.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, I digress …
Mr Henderson: You are supposed to be a lawyer.
Ms CARNEY: Now I know that the bully and thug who is the member for Wanguri …
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition, you will withdraw ‘thug’.
Ms CARNEY: I withdraw the references to ‘bully’ and ‘thug’, Madam Speaker.
Now, we get back again to, what is the industrial relations agenda of the Commonwealth government. The agenda of the government is still evolving. Hello, I live on planet Earth, members of the Australian Labor Party; try to keep up. There is no legislation before the parliament, there is no legislation before the parliament and, one more time, there is no legislation before the parliament.
The Commonwealth government has shown, over and over again, that it does support open debate on important issues that affect the people who have elected it, unlike the members of government sitting opposite.
The fact is the Commonwealth government continues to seek the best possible advice from all sections of our community with regard to the issue. Just yesterday, it was reported that the federal Minister for Workplace Relations, Kevin Andrews, announced that a Senate inquiry would assess any such industrial relations bill, a bill that does not exist yet, but a Senate committee would assess it after its tabling. The federal minister pointed out that complex legislation is exactly that: complex.
Madam Speaker, this motion is about political grandstanding and, as I said earlier, scaremongering. I did not expect that I would be spending great chunks of my time as an elected member of the Northern Territory Assembly participating in the shallow and shameless political stunts that make up this motion and, I suspect, many more to come. Next week, no doubt we will be talking about other federal issues.
A casual observer may well take the view that we must be close to a federal election, but we are not. Why is government doing this? It is because it has lost its way or is so utterly arrogant that it is just refusing to deal with the issues that it went to the election on only two months ago.
In any event, the minister wants the Commonwealth government to, and I quote parts of the motion, consult with the Territory government regarding the proposed legislation. Why should the Commonwealth government believe that you are sincere about consultation on this matter when just last week, you indicated that uranium mining decisions were too hard for you and that if anyone rang up about uranium mining, the minister said: ‘I will get them to ring you, Ian’. It is completely inconsistent.
It is worth pointing out that industrial relations reform was part of the Commonwealth government’s pre-election platform. Now, you blokes have just finished an election. You will say in this House, no doubt often over the next four years, that you have a mandate to do this, that and the other, that the people of the Territory spoke, rah, rah, rah. You are in the same business as the people in Canberra who are in government. The Commonwealth government has, as one of its pre-election platforms, industrial relations reform. That is obviously why you lot did not vote for them.
Surely, even the minister would be the first to admit that the highest level of consultation is an election, and that is the best opportunity for people to express their views. Minister, those views have been expressed. Get used to it. Guess what? The views were expressed to a level of dissatisfaction that has apparently assigned Labor federally to oblivion. I know that you are upset about that but, that is politics.
Last week, we had the mines minister throwing his hands in the air and surrendering your government’s involvement in expanding uranium mining. The minister did surrender our sovereign rights to be involved in any expanded uranium mining in the Northern Territory, and he did that because he had to comply with the federal Labor Party’s three mines policy. What people have not been reminded about in the context of the uranium debate, three mines policy, and we picked up last night, the member for Nhulunbuy, in August 1994, voted with the Labor Party in this House to condemn Labor's three mines policy. I do not mind people disagreeing with me but, please, be consistent. The very man who had a lot to say voted with the government in 1994 to condemn Labor’s three mines policy. I wonder what the Minister for Mines and Energy thinks about that.
Yesterday, when we talked about the nuclear waste facility, I listened to the impassioned pleas of many members of the government. I agreed with them, for the most part. I really did. I thought that members of the Labor Party were serious about approaching certain issues in a bipartisan way. My colleagues and I started to think that there may be some way we could put politicking aside and work together in a bipartisan way for the betterment of our community.
Yet 24 hours later, I am here participating in a shallow and shameless stunt aimed at filling time because the Notice Paper has so little on it. So full was your agenda for your second term, there are only half a dozen items on it, probably less brought about by government. You are filling up time. You have 19 members. You do not even know what to talk about. The Chief Minister - well, I cannot refer to her being here or not - but you are a rudderless ship within two months of your election, and you are pulling this sort of stunt. I am wasting my time participating in it because it is a motion that you lot have brought into this Chamber and, as Opposition Leader and members of the opposition, we must respond to it; it is appropriate that we do so.
However, in the course of responding, it is appropriate and necessary that we say, and say again: this is a stunt! Two months ago, you lot were re-elected to get on with the job of governing the Territory. Territorians have the right to expect that that is what you will do; not this sort of stuff. It is really quite pointless. Apart from the political stunt, I say again that you are debating something that, at this stage, does not even exist.
Let me give you some important facts about industrial relations and, as I said yesterday, the premiership team from the Territory in Canberra. Here are some facts …
Mr Henderson: Tell us about Paris. How did Dave enjoy Paris?
Ms CARNEY: I am glad the member for Wanguri is having a bit of a giggle. He just hates it when we give him some information that he knows is right, and all he does is either get loud or starts to smile, thinking that is going to have an effect. Well, it does not, member for Wanguri; it just does not.
Since 1996, Workplace Relations reform in Australia …
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: I will keep going because at least the microphone will pick it up. I am happy just to talk into it.
Since 1996, Workplace Relations reform in Australia has delivered real wage increases of more than 14%. It has delivered the lowest unemployment levels in almost 30 years, more than 1.6 million new jobs, seven million Australians in full-time work, the lowest level of strikes ever, higher productivity and higher living standards.
It has been widely reported that the Commonwealth government’s proposed workplace relations reforms are being constructed to continue that outstanding record. In his latest testimony to the House of Representative Standing Committee in February this year, the Governor of the Reserve Bank stated, when speaking on the topic of how to boost Australia’s productivity performance, and I quote:
- The biggest thing in this area is industrial relations reform. There must be a lot of things that still can be done.
Indeed, there are. That was the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia, someone whom even members of the Australian Labor Party would respect.
Perhaps the OECD’s latest economic survey on Australia issued in February this year might be of some interest to the minister. Under the heading Further Reforms to Labour Market Legislation Would Also Encourage Employment, the OECD states, and I quote:
- To further encourage participation and favour employment, the industrial relations system also needs to be reformed
so as to increase the flexibility of the labour market, reduce employment transaction costs and achieve a closer link
between wages and productivity.
Perhaps the minister will take notice of the Labor Party’s own economic modellers, their friends at Access Economics. Access Economics states in a report entitled Workplace Relations: The way forward, in February 2005, and I quote:
- Flexible labour markets provide job opportunities for more people, ensuring that the best worker is found for each job.
Productivity rises, as do wages and output.
The proposed workplace relations reforms should deliver higher productivity, increasing real wages, an environment conducive to lower interest rates and, most importantly, choice and flexibility for our workers.
Since 1996, the Commonwealth government’s workplace relations reforms have contributed to a stable and low inflationary climate. To argue otherwise is absurd. Every single home owner in the Northern Territory, indeed Australia, is a beneficiary of those reforms. Lower interest rates are a direct result of workplace reforms. Now government, sitting in this Chamber, wants to try to tell the Commonwealth government how to suck eggs and how it would run federal industrial relations. I do not think people will buy it. I say again that there is still no legislation before the parliament and the Commonwealth government is still consulting with appropriate stakeholders.
Let us provide some details about their reported proposals. The Commonwealth government is reportedly, and I stress reportedly, going to establish a fair pay commission to better protect the minimum wages, enshrine minimum conditions in legislation for the first time, introduce a fair pay and conditions standard to better protect workers in the bargaining process, simplify the agreement-making process at the workplace, provide modern award protection for those not considered by agreements, fix Labor’s unfair dismissal laws and introduce a national system of workplace relations.
It is reported today that the Commonwealth government is considering, as part of its proposed workplace changes, tougher laws to control bosses who might use any of the proposed laws to bully …
Mr Stirling: We saw that headline.
Ms CARNEY: … or exploit workers. I cannot hear what the member for Nhulunbuy said, but I know he is getting back into his grumbling bear routine. I do remember, probably a couple of years ago, sitting in this place when the minister in his capacity as minister for education spoke, I thought, very genuinely, very sincerely, about the problems of bullying in the workplace. In fact, if memory serves, I think his department issued some brochures and really got stuck into improving workplace relations, so seriously did the member for Nhulunbuy take this issue of bullying. I would have thought something like tougher laws to control bosses who might use any of the proposed laws to bully or exploit workers might be of particular interest to the member for Nhulunbuy and, indeed, his parliamentary colleagues.
According to The Australian newspaper, a government agency, the Office of Workplace Services, will be given a much enhanced role in protecting workers from having their wages or work conditions stripped. The Office of Workplace Services currently polices the application of federal awards and investigates workers’ claims of being underpaid or denied entitlements. I stress that all of this is reported, reported, reported. There is no bill before parliament.
I note that senior journalist Paul Kelly points out, also in today’s Australian newspaper, that Australia’s labour market remains more regulated than either Tony Blair’s Britain or Helen Clark’s New Zealand. Mr Kelly adds that Australia’s unemployment rate is higher as a consequence. Members should read today’s Australian.
The proposed reforms recognise that Australia’s workplace has changed. Australia, and particularly the Northern Territory, is now a nation of enterprise workers. I quote from Mr Kelly in today’s Australian:
- Howard’s enterprise worker is white and blue collar, public and private, a knowledge worker and a small business operator.
The defining quality is a state of mind, an acceptance that each workplace has to meet new competitive challenges.
The only reason our workers are finally out of the prehistoric age is because of the actions of, it could be said, one of the finest Liberal Prime Ministers Australia has ever seen, Paul Keating. Prime Minister Keating started this ball rolling and Prime Minister Howard is continuing the task. To argue otherwise ignores history and facts.
Minister, if you are like the rest of us, you will have a mortgage. The low interest rates that you and I and others are enjoying is a direct result of Australia’s increased productivity and our nation’s move away from the clutches of the ACTU. The scare campaign is all about flagging fortunes of federal flunkies. That is what this is about. That is what this is about. The ACTU is haemorrhaging membership - we all know that – haemorrhaging!
Rather than fixing its ideology, rather than modernising so that it comes into the real world, it is reacting like a bunch of Neanderthals under pressure and it starts banging things around. Neanderthals are extinct, and it could be said that the ACTU, stuck in its ideology, needs to move with the times. I do not for a minute say that everything the ACTU does and says I have disagreement with, but on this, it is scaremongering and it is a partnership with the Australian Labor Party, a misguided one.
I understand the Territory Labor Party is funded by unions both in the Territory and nationally. I also understand that union membership in the Northern Territory is the lowest in Australia, something for consideration. As I said, this motion is about the masters of the ministers opposite me, the ACTU. It is also about pleasing the government’s union friends and the federal Labor Party, make no mistake. In truth, the minister has as much real interest in this matter as his colleague, the mines minister, in uranium mining.
Let me point out that the Northern Territory’s federal Labor representatives, Senator Trish Crossin and Warren Snowdon, showed no commitment to the people and workers of the Northern Territory when they voted to oppose the Commonwealth government’s recent tax cuts. They voted to oppose it. Is that acting in the interests of the Northern Territory’s workers and families? I think not.
The opposition rejects this motion as political mischief. Blind Freddy can see that it is shallow and shameless grandstanding. It is also scaremongering.
In terms of where we are with this issue, noting that there is no legislation before the parliament and the Commonwealth government has some way to go before it announces the reforms that the doomsayers on the other side think they are going to reform, I urge members of the Australian Labor Party, and I know it is not easy for them, to settle down, wait for the facts and then make your decision. Labor waited 27 years to get into office in the Northern Territory. I am quite sure it can wait a few more months for the details of the proposed federal industrial relations reforms before it passes judgment.
Mr STIRLING (Acting Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I rise to second the motion moved by the Minister for Public Employment, and I commend both the content of what he had to say and the spirit in which that contribution was delivered to this House because he is absolutely genuine and serious in every word he said in that statement, as is this government.
It is apparent to us that the Commonwealth government has been entirely deceptive and misleading when it comes it this reform agenda for industrial relations changes.
Before I go to any of the detail of that, I want to pick up on a couple of things that the Leader of the Opposition had to say in relation shallow, shameless grandstanding by this government, and that the government is simply doing the pathetic bidding of unionists. They are a couple of good quotes that will stand us in good stead, I think, with our friends and supporters out there. She needs to understand the truth of this matter: there is no politics or grandstanding on this issue for us; it is straight out a protection of workers’ rights.
This is the callous cynicism that this Leader of the Opposition brings to this Chamber because she accuses this government of running on federal issues - yesterday, nuclear waste dump; today, industrial relations – rather than those issues we took to the Northern Territory election not all that long ago. Let me assure the Leader of the Opposition that every agency of this government is very busy, extremely busy, rolling out, translating and interpreting the commitments and election promises made by this government, to get them out to make a difference to the lives of Territorians, and that work is going on as we speak. She seemed to suggest that this government is not capable of running a number of things at the same time. Any government that is not capable of that simply ought not be there.
Where the cynicism and callous indifference to this issue comes in was the statement she made when she said: ‘We have had a federal election in October last year. We have just had a Territory election, you have come back with a big majority, why are you running on these issues?’ as if you only run on issues close to an election. Governments only run on these sorts of issues close to an election. That is simply not the case. This is the job of government, whether it is protecting the interests of Northern Territorians in opposing the nuclear waste dump, whether it is standing up for the rights of workers and ensuring that those sacrifices made by unions and workers all of those years ago, going right back to the Tolpuddle Martyrs, which was mentioned this morning on ABC radio. That is what this government stands for: a fair go for workers. We will continue to do that. We made a series of commitments prior to the election, coming out of a consultative process with the unions affiliated with Unions NT.
The Chief Minister, very appropriately, was able to make commitments on the May Day weekend not to introduce Australian Workplace Agreements, not to remove the historic right to union payroll deductions for public servants, not to hinder access to union officials to the workplace, and not to contract out services that can be directly undertaken within government as far as possible.
The then Leader of the Opposition, prior to the election, refused to make the same commitments. In fact, when he was asked by Unions NT what his position, and the Country Liberal Party’s position, was on the Commonwealth government’s industrial relations reform agenda, the then Leader of the Opposition said he had no idea. He had no idea! Now, either he was being cute or he was being duplicitous because it certainly was the issue of the day over the last six or nine months, and it is well known that Prime Minister Howard has long had this ideologically driven desire deep within him, from the time he was about five, apparently, to run unions out of this country. Lo! and behold, in this last federal election in October, delivering a Senate majority in July, as we have seen, takes him back to those deep roots of hatred of unions, hatred of collective bargaining, hatred of a fair go for Australian workers and all power to the bosses in the equation.
It is obvious that if the Country Liberal Party had been elected last term, they would have run with their federal counterparts on this issue. They would have ripped up collective bargaining and would have driven unions out of the workplace. They would have had AWAs across the face of the public sector before you knew what was what. Whether the then Leader of the Opposition had any idea about it or not, that is simply what would have happened; they would not have stood up to the Commonwealth government.
Our commitments differ markedly from the Commonwealth government’s agenda. We have seen first-hand in the Northern Territory that Australian Workplace Agreements will result in lesser conditions of employment, lower wages for workers and, of course, the whole rationale behind Australian Workplace Agreements is to de-unionise work forces and drive down conditions of employment.
If these Australian Workplace Agreements are so good for the employer, so good for the country, so good for the employee, so good for productivity, tell me this: in the nine years since the Howard government came to power in 1996, why are just 2.4% of workers in this country covered by Australian Workplace Agreements? Since 1996, he has been busy beavering away trying to get these Australian Workplace Agreements accepted across the length and breadth of the country and just 2.4% of workers in this country are covered by Australian workplace agreements. He has officers of the Employee Advocate out there running around workplaces every day of the week, every week of each year since 1996 telling people how good these AWAs are, and they ought to get on them whether they are a boss or a worker. Why is it that I stand here today, nine years after this agenda came to the fore and AWAs were introduced, just 2.4% of workers in this country are covered by Australian Workplace Agreements?
That tells me something. It tells me that they think they stink. Workers think they stink, companies think they stink, employers will not go near them, and still we have Prime Minister Howard saying this will be the saving of the country. Not so, and not our view.
Where the workers are unskilled or in low-skilled, low-paid positions across the work force, Australian Workplace Agreements absolutely put the full weight in the hands of one side of the equation, the employer, and not the employee. Employees have no bargaining power whatsoever. We saw the example of the Palmerston Town Council. They simply knocked off two weeks leave: ‘Sign on the dotted line if you want the job. Yes, four weeks leave, no negotiation around that. This is an AWA and this is going to tell you that you now have four weeks leave’. Existing employees have six, but this is the way of AWAs.
As an employer ourselves, the government recognises that we do not have a right to interfere with a proper relationship between an employee and their union. We believe an employee has the right to have their union fees deducted as they have authorised. To deny people that right is merely a transparent attempt to make it more difficult for people to access union membership.
One of the more insidious proposals of the Commonwealth government’s reform agenda is to restrict the right of entry of union officials to the workplace. It follows the theme, as I said, of making the efforts of workers to become members of their union as difficult as possible. Legislation already provides for officials to hold a permit, and that permit can, of course, be revoked at any time that the right of entry is misused or abused in any way. Why, then, is there any need to further restrict union officials’ right of entry? It is done by way of a permit system now.
With those commitments in relation to not contracting out services, over the last 10 to 15 years, we saw conservative state and Commonwealth governments systematically contract out a whole range of government services and sell off public assets. One of the reasons public debt across all the other jurisdictions in Australia has generally been brought under control is not by better fiscal management necessarily, but by their willingness to sell off quite lucrative government assets. In some cases, it has been used as a way of driving down conditions of service and wages, and shifting employment from what is seen as quite secure public sector employment conditions to more precarious employment and conditions of service with a contractor.
There are some services that cannot be provided by government and are better dealt with by the private sector. We recognise that and we use commonsense when we come to those decisions. However, we were re-elected earlier this year and we have an obligation to put in place those policies that we committed to in the election campaign.
That stands in stark contrast, again, to the understanding the Commonwealth government brought to Australians in relation to this whole reform agenda. Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me on which day in the election campaign Prime Minister Howard said: ‘I have a dream. I have a new vision. I have a better way forward for Australian workers and bosses and workplaces, and it is called a new industrial relations agenda’? Not one mention throughout the 2004 election campaign. It went for a few days; it went for weeks, if I recall. He had plenty of time to put this out in the face of Australians and see what they thought of it. Aside, then, of course, from not having a mandate, given that it was not raised at all in the election, there is no justification for the sorts of changes that the Prime Minister mooted.
When addressing the Liberal Party National Conference concerning the supposed need to drastically, dramatically and radically reform the industrial relations agenda in Australia, the Prime Minister did not rely on any economic argument or argument about productivity to justify these. Rather, he described the agenda as an ‘article of faith’. An article of faith! This is what I said at the outset, Madam Speaker. It is something very deep within him. Something very bad happened to the Prime Minister when he was about five or six and he grew up hating unions and workers ever after.
The CLP has a long and proud history of resisting unions and making it difficult for unions. Twenty-six-and-a-half years until the place got sick of it. So they feel quite at ease and, of course, it is no surprise to us that the Leader of the Opposition would reject this motion out of hand. It is entirely consistent with CLP ideology over the 26 and a bit years that they were in government.
It is the ideological agenda of this Commonwealth government made possible, of course, by gaining control of the Senate. I would be disappointed, honestly, if the CLP did change its spots because it would not be the CLP I knew and came to love over all that 26 years if they came in here said: ‘We now support you’.
During our first term of government, at one stage they discovered the Territory had blackfellas and they came in telling us about blackfellas for a few weeks. Then it was single mums - My God! There are a lot of single mums in the Northern Territory - and they got very precious about that. Then late, very late, in our four-year term, they discovered unions and they came in here telling us about unions. They said there are such things as trade unions out there. Workers belong to them, and they agitate for rights. It would be just too cute by half if the opposition did support this motion. I am proud that the Leader of the Opposition stands exactly where many of her predecessors in the CLP have stood before on these questions.
It is interesting to note the previously made claim that legislative change to unfair dismissal laws would create 70 000 jobs. Well, we did not see that anywhere in the pre-election campaign advertising in the lead up to the October federal election. That had been the subject of earlier government propaganda based on a survey subsequently proven to be flawed. You could create a number of jobs by removing unfair dismissal laws simply to put people into jobs that you have unfairly dismissed across the length and breadth of Australia, but that is not really job creation so much as job substitution.
Academics roundly criticised the methodology and conclusions of that survey. There is no evidence that the current laws have cost jobs. The question remains: how does making it easier to sack workers benefit the security of employment for Australian workers? There is no evidence that individual bargaining promotes productivity.
In fact, Professor Peetz of Griffith University noted in his paper Is Individual Contracting More Productive? that productivity growth in New Zealand following the introduction of the Employment Contracts Act was considerably lower than productivity growth in Australia under a regime of collective bargaining. The reforms initiated by the Keating government maintained fairness and equity for workers and that is the difference between the Labor Party and the Country Liberal Party and the Commonwealth government on this issue. It is one of equity, fairness and a fair go for Australian workers.
In addition to the initial removal of fairness, the Commonwealth government is creating an element of confusion, which was always bound to happen as a result of the lack of consultation surrounding the proposed legislation. It is interesting the Leader of the Opposition said the reason we have not seen this legislation to date is they are out there consulting. Who with? Who are they consulting with? The Australian Chamber of Industry perhaps and other like-minded bodies. They certainly have not been to this government or to Unions NT to discuss it, but perhaps unions and Labor state governments are not part of the round of consultation that we are told the Commonwealth government is involving itself in.
We saw the Prime Minister slap down his deputy over the issue of public holidays in the very same Question Time. The Deputy Prime Minister, of course, had the audacity to suggest that some public holidays should be sacrosanct. I would have thought that was a fair call, but the Prime Minister immediately countermanded that reasonable suggestion by stating that all public holidays are up for grabs.
It is apparent to us that the Prime Minister wants to recreate an Australia pre-1950s, perhaps even pre-1940s; we are not sure how far back he wants to go, but we certainly have this image of a little kernel very deep within him that is going to burst forth into great bloom and take all Australians with it.
In so doing and so achieving this grand vision, the Prime Minister is going to remove, absolutely abolish, fairness and equity as the basis of our industrial relations system and, of course, shift the balance of power firmly into the hands of just one of the participants, and that is the employer. I was going to say ‘at the table’ but there will be no table because there will not be discussion or negotiation in a collective bargaining process. There will not be unions representing the body of workers on one hand and the employer on the other. That simply does not occur under an Australian Workplace Agreement: ‘Here it is. Sign it, send it back to us. If we do not get it back in the next five days, we will assume you do not want the job and we will take the next person on the list’.
I was interested in what my colleague, the member for Johnston, was saying about the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. This is probably the most far-reaching legislation ever put down by any jurisdiction. In 1901, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act established the Australian Arbitration and Conciliation Commission, as it was then known, that has served this country for 104 years. There is no other institution in Australia outside parliament itself that has served the interests of Australians so well and balanced the interest of employers on the one hand and employees on the other.
As recently as a few months ago, when this government was completing negotiations around an enterprise bargaining agreement with the Australian Education Union for our teachers, it was necessary, very late in the piece, to go to the commission, to sit down. The commissioner heard both sides and made a ruling, which was accepted by both sides. On that legislation, as I said, I congratulate our federal forefathers because it was the most visionary legislation ever enacted possibly in the world, but certainly in this country. A body such as that has served this country so well for 104 years and we are going to gut it; we are going to strip it of all of its power, and those powers will reside with the Office of the Employee Advocate, a little political office set up by the Prime Minister to realise his dream.
All thinking Australians resent this, as we have seen by way of polls. Certainly, the feedback on the ACTU’s advertising campaign put the Commonwealth government on the back foot so quickly one would have thought they saw it coming as early as May Day. The ACTU was planning a major advertising campaign, and I do not think that thinking Australians will allow the Commonwealth government and Prime Minister Howard to ride roughshod over the rights of workers.
It is not a matter of tradition. The fact that it has been there 100 years does not make it good. The fact that it has worked effectively for 104 years is the reason we ought to protect the Australian Industrial Relations Commission and we ought not have our legacy in this regard torn apart …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Mr STIRLING: … at the whim of the current Commonwealth government. Madam Speaker, I urge members to support the motion.
_____________________
Debate suspended until after Question Time.
______________________
Debate suspended until after Question Time.
______________________
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise you of the presence in the gallery of the Evergreen Seniors Group, the Tuesday Seniors Club, senior citizens from Brennan electorate, and visitors from the Northern Territory, South Australia, New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a very warm welcome to all of you.
Members: Hear, hear!
MOTION
Commonwealth Government’s Industrial Relations Legislative Agenda
Commonwealth Government’s Industrial Relations Legislative Agenda
Continued from earlier this day.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I support the motion moved by the Minister for Public Employment and seconded by the Treasurer.
I will respond very briefly to something the Leader of the Opposition said in her speech regarding bullying. She is quite correct, that unions and those who represent the labour work force will encourage any provisions imposing penalties for bullying or preventing bullying by employers, and we will wait to see more information in relation to that.
The Prime Minister claimed in his address to the Sydney Institute on 11 July 2005 that his government’s proposed industrial relations reforms are:
- … grounded not in ideology, but in economic reality. They aim to strengthen our economy, but to do it in the
Australian way - by advancing prosperity and fairness together.
With the greatest respect to our Prime Minister, what a load of tripe! This is a person who, in 1983, said:
- The time has come when we have to turn Mr Justice Higgins on his head.
In other words, to destroy our industrial relations system, a system that has served this country for well over 100 years.
Mr Howard led the right wing within the Liberal Party, colloquially known as the ‘drys’. At the time, Mr Howard was Deputy Leader. Opposing his agenda were the ‘wets’, led in the industrial relations field by the then shadow industrial relations minister, Ian Macphee.
Paul Kelly, whom the Leader of the Opposition quoted today from his article in The Australian, gives a succinct account in his book The End of Certainty: The Story of the 1980s, and I quote:
The dismantling of the industrial system was the greatest single challenge confronting the Liberal free market zealots ...
The most formidable target of the radical Liberals was the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission - the issue which
dominated the internal Liberal Party struggle.
For members unfamiliar with the industrial relations framework, the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission was the forerunner to the present Australian Industrial Relations Commission. Paul Kelly continued:
It was the oldest debate since Federation, but this time it had a new twist. The issue was not just about wage rates and the
division of national income between wages and profits. It was about the system itself; whether a comprehensive legal
alternative should be established as the first step towards the dismantling of the arbitration process. The contest was
between centralised and decentralised industrial relations models ... The contest was crucial in its own right and as
a symbol of the dry/wet struggle for the Liberal Party’s future.
In other words, it is a factional brawl in the Liberal Party: two different ideologies, contesting for dominance of the Liberal Party, not economic. I return to Mr Kelly’s words:
Macphee … believed in the system of arbitration and was a reformer within that system. Howard’s aim was to undermine
the old system by having wages set by the market based on the different conditions in each enterprise. In its crudest form
Howard wanted a humane Americanisation of the workplace.
Post-1983 Howard sought two industrial goals - a reduction in union power and a wages system which reflected market
conditions.
Not ideologically motivated, the Prime Minister said. Let us test that statement against history. The 1980s saw an ideological power struggle within the Liberal Party. Howard eventually wins that struggle, and eventually becomes Prime Minister.
Australian Workplace Agreements and the Office of the Employer Advocate are part of the Workplace Relations Act 1996. This is decentralisation of industrial relations. This is taking away power from the Industrial Relations Commission and putting it in the hands of another organisation, which, by its very title and job description, is there to protect only one party’s interests: the employer. This is attacking collective bargaining by forcing employees to negotiate on their own without the aid of a union. This is dismantling an industrial relations system and setting up the free market model.
So far, we are in to the mid- to late 1990s and just prior to the last federal election. So far it is all looking very ideological to me, not looking anything like productivity driven. Why? Well, the economy of Australia in the mid- to late 1990s and at present is not the same as that of the early 1980s. We have companies announcing record profits year in and year out. It sounds to me that is rather productive, if company profit is any measure.
The voluntary uptake of AWAs is less that 3%. Obviously, collective bargaining continues to contribute to our productive nation as well as deliver real wages to the workers. Obviously, employers do not feel that there is any productivity gain from an AWA. In fact, I can tell members that in my role as an Industrial Officer with the LHMU, I discussed what AWAs were with the Human Resources Manager of one of the Territory’s large employers. I explained that AWAs were individual contracts that meant different employees doing the same classification of job could have different rates of pay depending on how good that individual was at negotiating. They could have different entitlements such as holidays, different penalties for working holidays, and different minimum hours of work, and this could be repeated across each of the various classifications. The Human Resources Manager explained what an administrative nightmare that would make their job, and that the process of enterprise bargaining with the unions was much easier. Clearly, no productivity for that HR Manager.
We have less than a 3% uptake on the alternative AWA industrial instrument despite the Commonwealth government aggressively promoting AWAs. The Commonwealth government, as we have heard, ties provision of funding and awarding of contracts to the use of AWAs. If productivity was the yardstick, why would this be required? If productivity was the key motivation for destroying the centralised system and role of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission and setting up the free market model, why has over 97% of the free market refused to have anything to do with it despite inducements by the Commonwealth government?
The Commonwealth government has now taken control of the Australian Senate. What was one of the first things it did post-election? Out of nowhere, it announced it would tear apart the industrial relations framework and complete the transition of our industrial relations to the free market model, the culmination of the ideological goal of Mr Howard since at least 1983.
Let us not forget that there was no focus on this by the Coalition during the election. The Commonwealth government cannot claim to have a mandate from the people for this agenda for it never raised it with them. This is purely political opportunism to push through a right wing economic rationalist model of industrial relations without even the economic justification.
I ask honourable members to keep in mind the ideological agenda as I discuss the role of the Industrial Relations Commission in maintaining the safety net. I also ask you to think about the other part of Mr Howard’s statement from July this year, that the changes are:
- … grounded not in ideology but in economic reality. They aim to strengthen our economy to do it the Australian way - by
advancing prosperity and fairness together.
Let us apply that to the removal of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission and its ability to set minimum wages. Millions of Australians depend on the minimum wage safety net. Each year, the Commonwealth Liberal government has opposed the size of the increases to the minimum wage sought by union movement on behalf of Australian employees. Peak employer bodies also oppose the increase.
In 2005, the ACTU sought an increase of $26.60. The Commonwealth government argued for $11, as did the Australian Industry Group. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry argued for $10. The commission, as we have heard, awarded $17. This represents a weekly wage of $484.40 as against the Commonwealth government’s position, which would have meant a minimum wage of $434.40 a week.
Honourable members can see that the independent umpire, the AIRC, has not simply sided with the ACTU nor the peak employer bodies and the Commonwealth government. In fact, if you go back through the changes to the safety net made since the Workplace Relations Act came into effect, you will find that the Commission has made awards closer to the Commonwealth government’s end of the scale than the ACTU’s.
The matters that the AIRC must consider in reaching its decision are set out in section 88B of the Workplace Relations Act, which refers to:
- (a) the need to provide fair minimum standards for employees in the context of living standards generally
prevailing in the Australian community;
(b) economic factors, including levels of productivity and inflation, and the desirability of attaining a higher
level of employment;
(c) when adjusting the safety net, having regard to the needs of the low paid …
At section 90, the act also provides that the AIRC must have regard to public interest and the state of the economy and the effect any award or order that the Commission is proposing with special regard to the likely effects on employment and inflation. In other words, the Industrial Relations Commission is bound by legislation to consider all of the things the Commonwealth government says it is concerned about. All the Commonwealth government is actually proposing to do is replace an independent umpire with a hand-picked committee to give it the decisions it wants.
In the Safety Net 2005 decision, the Commission found that, on average, the minimum wage had increased less that 4% per year since 1996. Management salaries, combined with their share options, have increased significantly more than this in the same period. Economically then, it is not the safety net, nor the Industrial Relations Commission that is the problem. One is led to the only conclusion available: this is an ideologically driven agenda. Further, it is very un-Australian and has nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with ensuring further prosperity for those already enjoying the greatest share of our country’s prosperity.
Let me debunk some of the statements the Prime Minister made in his 11 July statement when he set out what he alleged his proposed reforms did not do.
- They do not abolish awards or cut award wages.
Not as such, but they do reduce awards to five allowable matters. The High Court of Australia has already ruled that an award or enterprise bargaining agreement that includes matters outside allowable matters is void. If a condition is not protected by an award or EBA, it is vulnerable to being cast aside by employers. Employers can present an AWA to a prospective employee that offers only what the award protects. The employer can say: ‘Take the job or go; your choice’.
- They do not abolish the right to join a union …
said the Prime Minister. No, but they do reduce union officials visiting workplaces to twice a year. They do not oblige an employer to advise an employee of their right to join a union. It is designed to make it harder for unions to recruit and represent members. It is a deliberate attack on the efficacy of the union movement to remain the voice for workers in this country.
The Prime Minister said:
- They do not stop a worker having a union bargain for them.
No, but then they do not have to. The inequality of the bargaining position created by the changes, the threat of not being hired or being dismissed without access to unfair dismissal protection provided by the changes, and the difficulty of consulting the union set up by the changes will do all that.
- They do not abolish the right to strike.
No, but they establish significant penalties for a union as an organisation, the union official as an individual and any employee who goes on strike or takes industrial action if there is the slightest mistake in the preliminary paper work process that must be completed in order to effect legal industrial action. The threat is there.
- They did not abolish the Industrial Relations Commission.
No, but then they did not have to. The changes will turn the commission into a paper, toothless tiger with a jurisdiction so remote that 90% of Australians cannot access it.
- The changes do not give employers the right to treat their workers poorly.
Well, to that I say: yes, they do, Prime Minister, and you know it. The Commonwealth government attacks our livelihoods, an attack on our ability to earn a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work, and that is an attack on our families. By attacking us now, they attack the future working conditions of our children. There are already some cases in the press reporting that is exactly what is happening now.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the motion by the Minister for Public Employment for a number of reasons, the first of which is to show my constituency of Millner and the general public of the Northern Territory the benefits of voting for the Labor Party in the last election, and they were to have a voice in the protection of workers rights which, unfortunately, have recently been eroded by the Commonwealth government’s attempts to change industrial relations in Australia. Second, I want place on record my support for not only the motion, but for unions and workers’ rights for future generations.
I re-state my support for the union movement. Other speakers today have spoken about the history of the union movement and have put their support on record. I, like many members, have been a union member for nearly my whole working life. This was drummed into me by my parents, both my mother and father, who are staunch union supporters and, of course, my paternal grandfather who was a great believer in the union movement.
I know the member for Arnhem is going to talk about the Wave Hill Walk Off and the importance of it. Through my grandmother, I am a descendant of the Gurindji people. On both sides of my family, the union movement has influenced our existence over the last 100 years in the Northern Territory, particularly because of the union movement’s ability to advocate for indigenous people’s rights to get a fair wage and to vote.
I have often said in this House that my father was 26 years old before the referendum was passed for indigenous people to be allowed to vote in this country. Many people in the Northern Territory could not understand what that would feel like, to be a well-respected member of the community, working and participating in social events in the Northern Territory, yet within the law of Australia not having the right to vote. My father’s and mother’s involvement in the union movement allowed this to occur. They told stories of the old wharf days and the disputes to protect workers’ rights are legendary within my family. This extends to my father’s involvement with the Fire Fighters’ Association and the work that was done with the ACTU when Bob Hawke was its President.
Like many members in this House, we support the right of workers to collectively organise and protect their rights. One of the reasons why people voted for the Martin Labor government was our commitment to portable long service leave. There are hundreds and hundreds of people in the building game who often talked about conditions in the Northern Territory not being comparable to down south. In the past, this has had a huge effect on us recruiting interstate people to work in the Northern Territory. We have seen a boom in the construction game in the last few years under the NT Labor Party and, along with that has come our legislation that has helped with recruitment of workers to the Northern Territory.
The CLP had the option to do this for 26 years, which they never did. The ability to have portable long service leave has been around for a generation down south. The Labor government, for the first time in the Territory’s history, introduced portable long service leave. This was introduced to support the building and construction industry. It is in stark contrast to what the Commonwealth government wants to do. There are benefits to construction workers: because of the transient nature of the industry, we can now recruit workers from Victoria, Queensland, New South Wales, etcetera. It is a policy that has been in place in other jurisdictions for a generation and it has affected the ability of the Territory to attract skilled workers. Our scheme came into effect on 1 July this year.
A board was established to be representative of the industry. At the moment, there do not seem to be any hitches, and it has been welcomed by the industry and the unions. The scheme is based on a levy, which the board sets. Projects over $200 000 of total construction costs come within this scheme. The scheme provides a marketing benefit to the construction industry. An NT Build Office has been established in Stuart Park Central. It is now accepting registration and taking inquiries. Already, I have been reliably informed by the minister’s office that 1200 registrations have been received, and other jurisdictions have confirmed reciprocal rights. This is a fantastic initiative, and it demonstrates what the government can do to protect workers’ rights.
I would like to read the motion into the record again for the benefit of those people to whom I will send a copy of my speech. The Minister for Public Employment has proposed a motion that this Assembly:
(a) express its concern with the Commonwealth government’s industrial relations
legislative agenda;
will be worse off as a result of the Commonwealth’s planned industrial relations legislation;
regarding the proposed legislation;
- (d) call upon the Commonwealth government not to reduce the jurisdiction of the independent
umpire, the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, the AIRC;
(e) call upon the Northern Territory members of the House of Representatives and Senate to oppose
and vote against the legislation that reduces the working conditions of Territorians; and
(f) through the office of the Speaker, forward the terms of this motion and associated debate to the
President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Prime Minister and the
Leader of the Opposition in the Commonwealth parliament.
We have heard from the Minister for Public Employment and the Treasurer. It is disappointing that the Leader of the Opposition’s contribution was quite thin.
This government has continued to be proactive. I would like to talk about what the NT government is doing for the public service, our employees. We have increased their salary by 3%, from the overall 11% over three years package, which was payable this month. This increase was part of a three-year EBA-negotiated agreement with the NT Public Service unions, and follows a 5% increase backdated to August 2004. The current agreement add-ons include: no job losses; death and disability cover; creation of permanent employment for employees on temporary appointment or higher duties for two years; increasing casual loading from 15% to 20%; a work-life balance review; a review of technical and physical streams; professional development allowances; electricity subsidy for remote localities; salary sacrifice; assistance with studies; and other agency-specific issues regarding classifications and rosters. This is in stark contrast to the path of AWAs that are made in secret.
Just after the election I attended a march and heard speakers from the Commonwealth government’s Department of Education and Workplace Relations, DEWR, which is compelling new starters to sign AWAs. We had representatives from this Commonwealth government department speak at this rally, and they were quite disappointed that they were being forced into these agreements.
AWAs have proliferated throughout the Commonwealth Public Service. They account for the largest number of AWAs in the work force, 12 000. AWAs have a detrimental effect on the Commonwealth Public Service. Speaking in July 2005, former senior Commonwealth public servant Patrick Gourley described the application of the Commonwealth government’s industrial relations policies in the public service as ‘a mess’.
The detrimental effects of AWAs include: favouring of larger agencies in the internal bidding for personnel; subversion of promotion systems and the common classification system; a drop from 12% to 6% in staff mobility between agencies in the last five years; an immense increase in the cost and complexity; removing openness and accountability by AWAs being shrouded in secrecy; undermining flexibility and choice by imposing AWAs; undermining the principle of appointment on the basis of merit by making AWAs a condition of employment; and the widening of the gap between women’s and men’s earnings.
The NT government will continue its commitment to collective bargaining for the Northern Territory Public Service.
Finally, part of our election commitment was not to use AWAs. The Martin Labor government gave a firm commitment not to use AWAs in the recent Territory election. That was one of our big policy initiatives, and we made that quite clear not only to the NT Public Service but to the wider community, and we continue our commitment to collective bargaining. This is in stark contrast to the opposition. Last year, the opposition moved a censure motion regarding AWAs. The motion was misguided and continued the obsession with individual bargaining. The Commonwealth government is continuing with an agenda of ramming AWAs down people’s throats, and we have grave concerns at the intention of the Commonwealth government to link funding to the use of AWAs.
We have a mandate not to use AWAs because we took it to the NT people. We overwhelmingly won the last election. The Commonwealth government, on the other hand, did not seek a mandate for the agenda. We heard the Treasurer say that we never heard a word before the last election about the AWAs. The Minister for Public Employment asked the federal Workplace Relations minister where the agenda was discussed prior to the election, and there was no response.
In summary, I thank the minister’s office for providing me with the relevant notes and information. I thank all members who have contributed to this debate. The Australian Labor Party has a tradition of protecting workers’ rights and the right to collectively bargain. Unfortunately, we are seeing an ideological attack on that general principle. People’s rights to organise together as a group will stop individuals being unfairly picked upon and, for those individuals who, for lack of power, are unable to represent themselves adequately, collective representation helps to obtain a fair and just wage. I am proud to be part of the Northern Territory government that continues to ensure that workers in the NT have the right to collectively organise.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I rise to add my comments on this motion. I preface them by saying I do not support the motion. I will explain why I cannot bring myself to support the motion. I would prefer in some respects to not contribute until we have something of substance to debate.
What has occupied the airwaves to date is largely misinformation. People have responded most strongly to the voices of so-called responsible people issuing fright after fright about what possibly may occur and are justifiably afraid because of their trust in the leadership of this country. Is it the case? Do we have legislation to consider?
Isn’t it a fact that the legislation will go to a committee for consideration? That is on the public record. To me, it is a disappointing use of time in this Chamber when I can look around the Northern Territory and see issues of genuine concern to all of us that, really, we should be focusing our efforts on.
This is what started it for me: a short time ago, we had the Minister for Racing, Gaming and Licensing articulating his outrage but appearing to be impotent. I want to demonstrate that there is an inconsistency and a lack of integrity in the way this parliament has approached this issue. It is understandable that people have strong feelings against the decision to grant another takeaway licence, for example, in Darwin’s CBD. Recently, there was very strong feeling on this local issue. What is not understandable is that the responsible minister shares the view. He is similarly outraged, yet declares that he is unable, unfortunately, to do anything about it.
I recall last year the same scenario in Alice Springs when the Liquor Commission gave the okay for a hairdressing salon to serve alcohol. Tragically, the responsible minister stood with the crowd to add his voice to the chorus of complaint, expressed great regret at the outcome, and walked away.
Whilst it is faintly comforting to experience this level of empathy from a senior community representative, it is disturbing and gives rise to the question: is a minister of the Crown devoid of power or unwilling to apply it? Legislation controlling the granting of liquor licences comes under the authority of the Territory parliament and is administered by the responsible minister. This minister can exercise authority in such matters and at times is duty bound to do so.
The point of my comments is this: a similar scene was repeated very recently and is being echoed in this Chamber right now, but it has a bizarre twist. Representatives of unions gathered to express their outrage at the Commonwealth government’s plans to reform industrial relations. The same scene was played out, but this time there was an important difference. This time, the minister is powerless. Industrial relations in the Territory are fully determined by Commonwealth legislation. While the minister momentarily resumed his role as a union secretary and whips the crowd into a frenzy, he neglected to reveal that he has no authority in this matter.
However, when he has the opportunity to act in the best interests of the community that has elected this parliament, he walks away from that responsibility. That is why I find it difficult to get involved in this debate. It is similar to yesterday. Take your job seriously; there are issues in the Northern Territory that need our serious attention. One was raised during Question Time, and that is the quality of constant tenure of teachers in building relationships with our students in classrooms. That is something that should focus our attention rather than to maintain an agenda primarily directed at stirring up concern when we really do not know the substance or the nature of the reforms being proposed.
It takes us back to the GST debate. I have not had time to go through in detail the comments that were made in this Chamber by members of the Labor Party when there was talk of taxation reform, but I do recall that the now Chief Minister spoke in terms of it reducing the income of those who can least afford to pay and how it was not a good thing. There were similar debates in this Chamber of strong opposition to taxation reform. Come the reform, not a peep.
What disturbs me when I listen to the comments that have been uttered in this Chamber is the reinforcement of a class struggle, an increase in the adversarial nature of how our community negotiates difficult things. It is further creating a sense of divide between the terrible boss who wants to destroy and sap the life out of workers, and poor workers, the downtrodden. The language coming from members of the Labor Party seems to reinforce that notion.
I represent many Territorians who share the same experience of working in small business, small enterprises, family concerns. They stand somewhere in the middle. I will not use my time to speak of the great struggles in primary industry, to battle against the power of unions and waterfronts. There is tremendous hurt within the primary industry sector arising from the militant dominance, the uncaring actions of waterfront workers and how they have affected the primary industry. That is something that I have personally been involved in, and it hurt immensely.
The story that you seem to be telling in here is too black and white. It does not recognise we have a story in the middle, people who want to take risks to go into private enterprise, and to work in cooperation with those they employ and, together, share productivity and increased benefits that come from that enterprise. There is a story in the middle, and that is the story being misrepresented.
Do you understand industrial relations? I tell you what: one thing I do understand is relations. We need to build better relations in this country, and a better dialogue between those who work and those who take the risk of enterprise so that, together, we can increase productivity and share the benefits of a stronger and growing economy. We need to develop better relations. The language that is being spoken at the moment is divisive and it is destroying the opportunity for better relationships between those who work and those who take the risk of private enterprise.
The facts speak for themselves. I have an element of trust here. It appears to be devoid from the ideologically-driven comments by members opposite who have already spoken, but the runs are on the board and I come to this proposition with some trust. I have a trust that Australians have the capacity to respond to reform because it is in everyone’s best interest to continue and develop the changes that have occurred in this nation.
These are the runs that are on the board: since 1996, workplace relations reform in Australia has delivered real wage increases of more than 14%; the lowest unemployment levels in almost 30 years; and more than 1.6 million new jobs. If the discussion centres on having a job or not having a job, that is of concern. There have been 1.6 million new jobs, and that is a fundamental improvement of a magnificent level. Seven million Australians are in full-time work, with the lowest level of strikes ever, higher productivity and higher living standards.
Mr Kiely: It is a good system. Why change it?
Mr MILLS: Change is constant. The environment is changing; the option to remain constant is not there. Australians’ living standards depend on the productivity of the workplace, ongoing improvement. What we have seen here is an increase and an improvement, but the ongoing increase in living standards is dependant upon the workplace and it must continue. The national and international climate is changing. We need to be in a different place in five years time. Everyone knows that the world economy is changing and we must respond to it. To remain as we are now is not an option.
What is the aim of this? What is the underlying purpose of this reform? As we hear from members opposite, it is almost as though we are going to reintroduce child slavery. The aim is to enhance living standards through increased productivity; that is the purpose. I do not want to be involved in anything else. I want to see increased productivity and strengthening of the Australian economy for the benefit of Australian families, every one of them. I do not want to see an increase in wealth from one sector to another at the expense and alienation of another. I want to see a general improvement and strengthening. I believe that is the aim of this. I cannot accept that there is malevolent intent, that this is a sinister plan.
It appears to me to be based on economic reality. I support the notion of prosperity and fairness working together. It is possible in the context of good relations that people can negotiate better deals in the workplace so that, together, we can share prosperity in a context of fairness.
Job protection and increased wages can only be achieved if the economy is strong. If the economy - the core of this - is not strong, we do not have a discussion of this nature. We are talking about the increase in jobs, the rise of living standards only afforded by a growing and strong economy. That is the core of this: we are increasing the capacity to pass on a benefit to all Australians. That is what I want to see.
Yes, I am aware of the scaremongering that is out there and that people are concerned about reductions in living standards and people being taken advantage of. To cast it in such simple terms that because I am this side of the argument, I do not mind that sort of stuff happening is absolute rubbish.
As someone who has employed people, taken risks, worked in private enterprise and taken a responsibility for my own actions, I want to see that level of cultural change occur in the Australian workplace. I believe that Australian workers have a capacity to be involved in a greater level in increased productivity in the workplace. I believe that Australian workers are adaptable and resilient. They are, in fact, our greatest asset. I believe in them. I believe what we are talking about is an attitude of mind. It is about initiative, performance and reward all linked together. It is quite a different notion.
The language used in this Chamber and in many articles and media broadcasts does not seem to lift to that possibility, to unleash the potential that is there for increased benefits in the workplace.
What concerns me is the nature of this debate, this idea that workers are going to be disadvantaged, that bosses are going to be enlarged in their capacity to wring the last drop out of workers. I do not know where that comes from unless it comes from a strange place which is recognising that cultural change is in the wind and with that cultural change comes a reduction in power to some who have been accustomed to holding such power: the unions.
This is what disturbs me because underneath, there seems to be this other message that comes through. That message will be fully revealed, I expect, as this debate unfolds. I would like to read an account of an interview that was conducted on the Channel 9 Today show this morning. The interviewer, Karl Stefanovic, asked Treasurer Costello:
Let’s move on to industrial relations, the hotbed that is industrial relations. News this morning that your government
is considering tougher laws on bosses who bully or exploit workers through the office of workplace services, is that correct?
Oh, yes, we believe that nobody should be forced into signing an agreement against voluntary consent. If they want to agree,
that is fantastic, but nobody should be forced and so any attempt to do that would be met with punishment, and there should
be an independent office which has the capacity to do that and to stop any breaking of the law by employers, or indeed by
unions in the work force.
Sharan Burrow …
… said this morning that it has been no friend to workers at all and it is history.
Well, Sharan Burrow was caught on camera asking the ACTU Executive to try and find somebody who had a relative injured
or killed in the workplace so that she could use that person for advertising, for political propaganda. It is one of the most
offensive things that has ever been captured out of an ACTU meeting.
Whatever it takes, it is that level that we descend to in such debates that cause great concern.
What are we talking about? We have many commentators looking at our economic record in Australia, seeing how we have improved and asking: ‘What is the next level of reform?’ Some 20 years ago, it was taxation reform. Paul Keating tried it. He was shot down by the ACTU. Finally, it was delivered to the benefit of this government and every other Labor government in every state.
The next level of reform is industrial reform. The Governor of the Reserve Bank said that the biggest thing in this area is industrial relations reform. There must be a lot of things still that can be done.
The OECD speaks the same language. It says to further encourage participation and favour employment, the industrial relations system also needs to be reformed so as to increase the flexibility of the labour market, reduce employment, transaction costs and achieve a closer link between wages and productivity. Access Economics makes similar comments.
I still cannot understand this. I was not raised in the union movement so I do not have that blood running through my veins. I see it as a farmer, trying to understand what this is actually about.
This is what has been proposed and reported. We are not discussing legislation. We are discussing proposals, that are being reported, to establish a Fair Pay Commission to better protect minimum wages, to enshrine minimum conditions in legislation for the first time, to introduce a fair pay and condition standard to better protect workers in the bargaining process, to simplify the agreement-making process at the workplace, to provide modern award protection for those not covered by agreements, to fix Labor’s unfair dismissal laws, and introduce a national system of workplace relations.
Last night after leaving this Chamber, I was watching Question Time in the Commonwealth parliament. In terms of unfair dismissal laws, which were a Keating government experiment, there was a survey of 900 businesses released earlier this week and it provides further evidence of this failed experiment. The survey found that a massive 65% of businesses had experienced or known of speculative unfair dismissal claims by workers. A further 37% said the practice of paying ‘go away’ money occurred regularly, and another 30% said it happened occasionally. Given these facts based on this recent report, it is a wonder that Labor is still unwilling to accept that there is a problem with ‘go away’ money.
We are talking about increased productivity. We are talking about reform that should lead to strengthening our core economy. We are talking, in my view, about better relations in the workplace between employers and employees so that we can unleash the potential as Australians in this great place.
I ask members opposite to hose themselves down a bit. Let us take a deep breath and watch this unfold. I know there is an agenda being delivered through this Chamber by elected members, but let us be fair. Let us watch how this unfolds and see what we are actually responding to. Once that occurs, we can buy in more responsibly. Until then, let us turn our attention with greater determination to issues that really do concern us and are under our domain, such as issues on which the Minister for Racing, Gaming and Licensing appeared impotent. Get on with the job of governing and deal with issues that are of primary concern to the families of the Northern Territory.
Ms McCARTHY (Arnhem): Madam Speaker, we do have something of substance to debate. The minister has given his report on a national meeting of ministers and the federal Workplace Relations Minister that he attended earlier this month regarding the Commonwealth government’s plans on its industrial relations legislation agenda.
He spoke not once, he spoke twice and three times today outlining the clear and decisive action that is being discussed at the Commonwealth level. There are television advertisements by the Commonwealth government that indicate its stance. Yes, forced into doing so because the ACTU was proactive in alerting Australians to the major industrial relations agenda being driven by the Howard government. These are issues of substance.
It is an agenda that required action immediately to stop it from becoming legislation. That is why we are having this debate. That is what debate and discussion is all about. Such is the outrage and disgust at the Howard government’s intentions to dismantle the rights gained by workers in this country in the past 100 years. For those rights, here in the capital of the Northern Territory, more than 2000 people walked the city streets to protest loudly and passionately against the Commonwealth government’s industrial relations legislative agenda. How wonderful it was that those workers chose to walk the streets at the time the Labor government in the Northern Territory was sworn into parliament for a second time since self-government.
The Chief Minister led the march with her fellow Labor ministers and MLAs, united with the people of the Northern Territory. It was the biggest protest Darwin had seen in a very long time - if not the first, but by no means the last. It will not be the last. It was a clear and sincere indication of the concerns held by the average mums and dads in Darwin who worry about their future and those of their children, who worry about the rights gained and the rights that will be whittled away, if not removed entirely, by a Commonwealth government that has become too far removed from the people, a Commonwealth government that is out of touch with the people, a Commonwealth government that looks too closely at the financial gains of opportunities in countries like China and India to see the real needs of people right here in Australia, the human needs, the everyday needs of family life. It has forgotten that any business must have workers who are happy to work in their place of employment, a place of employment where they feel no intimidation from their employer, where the worker feels they have an opportunity to raise their concerns, their issues and be heard without fear of retribution. We know that collective bargaining rose out of the deep-rooted concerns that many employees most of the time confront a power imbalance at work in dealing with their employer.
It is the women in this country who have much to lose. Women have fought long and hard for equality in the workplace, and for employer respect in the value of balancing work and family life. There are 10 women here in the parliament, Madam Speaker, and each one of us has our own stories of the struggles we have had to face in life to be where we are today. We must surely have benefited from hard-won rights over the decades.
Right here in the Northern Territory parliament, we have achieved history because of the number of women in this parliament, a parliament that stands alone, for no other Australian parliament, nor, indeed, international parliament, has achieved the record we did on 18 June 2005.
I know there is no way that I could have continued in my previous place of employment for 16 years without the ability to negotiate, without fear of intimidation, as a member of the Australian Journalists Association, which then became the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance, for that length of time. I had two children during those years of employment and returned to my position after paid maternity leave without fear that it would be ripped from under me because workers’ rights were enshrined in fairness. Fairness is a word the Prime Minister, John Howard, seems to have forgotten. There are statistics that show that women on Australian Workplace Agreements receive 11% less compared with women covered by collective agreements. That is the direction the Howard government is heading.
One does not need statistics to know that if a mum or dad is happy at work, they are more than happy at home because their employer understands that the two can work together, that there does not have to be competing interests on the employee. It is the respect of the person, the responsibilities of caring for a family, which must never be taken for granted. However, it appears the chase for the dollar in this country and overseas, the desire to be competitive and, in John Howard’s words, ‘prosper’ obviously means at the cost of family life.
The Australian Industrial Relations Commission recently brought down a decision in the Family Provisions test case. This is an example of how the Commonwealth government’s attacks on the AIRC can have a detrimental effect on ordinary Territorians. Much of the agenda of the Commonwealth government is to reduce the jurisdiction of the AIRC to virtually nothing. The Full Bench decision was handed down on 8 August. The AIRC’s President, Justice Geoffrey Giudice said the Full Bench had arbitrated a new provision, giving employees the right to request the following variations:
- 1. Taking an extra 12 months’ unpaid parental leave;
2. Returning to work on a part-time basis after parental leave until a child reaches school age; and
3. Extending simultaneous parental leave to a maximum of eight weeks.
The Office of the Commissioner for Public Employment is looking at the decision to see how the Northern Territory Public Service compares.
Members in this House today have outlined the changes the Howard government wants to implement. My colleague, the member for Brennan, has also gone to great lengths to define the history of the struggle of the early Labor years, and of the unwarranted and unfair attacks by the Commonwealth reforms on the Australian Industrial Relations Commission.
Let me again remind members and, most especially, members of the opposition, the importance of that history. It has been well documented how collective bargaining is viewed as a fundamental human right under international law by the United Nations and the International Labour Organisation. Under these laws, every employee has the right to join a union and to have their wages and conditions collectively negotiated. Under the Howard government, these laws are under serious threat. There is clear evidence to show that collective bargaining is not supported by the Prime Minister and his government.
As minister Burns stated in his address to parliament this morning, the federal Minister for Workplace Relations on 5 August, this month could not assure - and still has not assured - Australians that no worker will be worse off as a result of the upcoming legislation.
Madam Speaker, I support the motion calling on the Prime Minister to give a categorical assurance that no Territory worker will be worse off as a result of the Commonwealth’s planned industrial relations legislation.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, it is unfair to bring this on so quickly, when the Orders of the Day, on the first day we were here, made no mention of it. Today, it is number 2 on the Notice Paper.
It is a very important issue; I am not getting away from that fact. However, to ask members to deal with an issue of such importance so quickly, I believe, is unfair. I imagine members in government would have had a lot more notice that this was coming up and would have had the support of the government to help them with their contributions. They have the backing of the unions. As you know from the web sites, there is plenty of information on the unions’ point of view.
For me to give an in-depth contribution to this debate is very difficult. Some people might say we should not be debating at all, but it has a certain amount of relevance because the Commonwealth government does control industrial relations in the Territory, so it has some relevance. However, it is something we should have been forewarned about a long time ago so we could have done justice to a debate that is important.
Minister, I noticed during Question Time, you said I was not interested. I am interested. My complaint really was not about the content of what we are discussing; I have a problem with what I call ‘repeats’ in Question Time. When I have heard it earlier and it is repeated, that sometimes ruins what Question Time is about. I would much rather hear questions such as the one from the member for Daly, who asked a great question about youth facilities in Katherine - it was a good question - instead of questions that fill the atmosphere with foam, like when you put your finger on the shaving cream. We do not need that. The reason I raised a point of order was because Question Time is important, and the more questions we can ask that are relevant to the people we represent, the better. If that question to you, minister, was not a repeat, I would have been happy to hear it. So, do not get me wrong; I do take an interest in the subject.
I will run through how I see this issue, which may vary from what other people think. There has been much talk about the new industrial relations bill that the Commonwealth government intends to introduce later this year. One of the difficulties of discussing this bill is that we do not have legislation before us; we have to go on media releases and statements. For instance, the Commonwealth government released Our plan for a modern workplace, and will use that as the basis of my contribution today. Of course, there has been a lot of debate and, until we see the legislation, a lot of this is what we presume will happen, but we do not have the details.
I have worked on both sides of the fence - in fact, three sides of the fence, you might say. I have been a boss, I have been an employee, and I have been a self-employed worker for many years. So in some small way, I am able to recognise some of the difficulties that are faced from both the employee’s and the employer’s perspective.
What I will be looking at in this legislation is to see what the changes will mean not only for the worker, but also for the worker’s family. The family is the key to our society. It is the basis of our society and it is under enormous pressure today, as can been seen from the high rate of divorce and break-ups. There are probably many reasons for that, but I have very little doubt that work for either one or both partners plays a significant role. Mum and dad are always working.
The price of a home today is starting to get out of reach for many families; working long hours to pay for the mortgage becomes the main focus of our lives. When we are talking about employers, sometimes the government has to realise it is an employer in a bigger sense. It is an indirect employer because it is decisions that government makes that can affect workers indirectly. The reason I mention that is, as an indirect employer, it can have a lot to do with the availability and price of housing through cheaper loans and cheaper land. That way, it can help the worker and the family.
I always find it strange when the Acting Chief Minister rises, with all due respect to the member for Port of Darwin, in praise of the Real Estate Institute for higher prices for housing and units, but coming from a party that represents the worker, it is an anomaly because the higher the price of houses, the harder it is for people to be able to buy their own house.
Mr Henderson: What about HomeNorth?
Mr WOOD: Yes, I have heard that argument before, but it is limited to $240 000, as you know, member for Wanguri …
Ms Sacilotto: $260 000.
Mr WOOD: $260 000, but you would be lucky, very lucky, to find a place in the rural area for that price. What I am saying is that whilst you might cheer that the price is going up, whilst you might say that you can get a loan, the bigger the loan, the longer you have to pay. The reason you have to get a bigger loan is because the price of housing is going up all the time. You might be able to get the money, but you will be paying for the rest of your life. All I am saying is …
Mr Henderson: What about the wealth that is being generated for the family and future generations?
Mr WOOD: Well, you are paying a mortgage all of your life. I am not saying you should not have an open market, but the government has a role to play in providing cheaper housing through cheaper land, those options. I do not think there is enough of that. I raise that as a point because we can talk about better pay and conditions, but if you cannot afford to buy a house, you cannot achieve a fundamental aim of Australian society, and we need to protect that.
I would like to talk about AWAs. I am interested to hear from the other side what they think, too. AWAs and contracts do not seem much different. Many of our government people in the higher echelons are on a contract for so many years. AWAs are basically a contract. So whilst the government says it does not like AWAs, to a large extent you support them because your higher people in the public service are on contracts. I can tell you now that I am not a fan of contracts. I am not saying people do not have the right; they do. I would be concerned about AWAs that do not have a foundation, a bottom line that you cannot go below.
I believe that people have the right to have a contract. I do believe people have the right to have an AWA, as long as they have a choice to be on the award as well and as long as they are free to do it. I have heard people concerned saying that you have a young person turn up for work for the first time and the boss says: ‘We all have AWAs so you sign there’. Certainly, they need protection. We need to make sure people, if they want to sign up for an AWA, understand it. Perhaps they have to take it away for someone else to have a look at so they have time to look at what they are doing. So no matter whether it is a contract, an AWA or the award, I am a supporter of the choice as long as there is a bottom line that says you cannot go below that.
One of the reasons I do not like contracts is because I do not know how people expect to get a mortgage on a house if you know you have a five year contract. Years ago, if you had a job in the public service, you knew you probably had it for life. It was the same with many businesses. You went to the bank and they said: ‘Who do you have a job with?’, and you could say: ‘I am working with the government’, or ‘I have a job with Coles or Woolies,’ and the bank would say: ‘Okay, you get a loan’. Banks are not going to be too happy if you have a three-year contract. They are just going to say: ‘Sorry, that is not long enough for us to guarantee that you can get a loan’. Then you have to go and get mum and dad to give you the deposit; that is the problem today. Many people have to get other people to help them buy the house. That is one of the disadvantages of contracts.
Mr Kiely: That is why we have the partnerships on HomeNorth.
Mr WOOD: That is very good, yes, I am not denying that, but there are cases where it is difficult. I have run into people who cannot find the money and they have had to go and ask mum and dad or someone else. Why do you see ads in the paper saying: ‘If you cannot get a loan, please ring us and we will get you the loan’? There is difficulty in getting loans at times, and it is harder when you are on a contract.
I worry about contracts because many people have to work extra hours. The contract might be for a 40-hour week, but they probably work a 60-hour week. The contract might contain a clause that says they have to do exactly what the boss says. In some cases, they have to work longer hours because they fear they will lose their job. Contracts at times can mean that a family man or woman is not home as much as they should be, and that is why whatever changes are being looked at in the industrial relations bills, we should emphasise that the family needs to be protected.
When it comes to the unfair dismissal laws, I have some concerns because they are not going to apply to employers who employ fewer than 100 workers. Most small businesses in the Northern Territory, except for some of the mining companies and maybe the big retail companies, do not employ anywhere near 100 people. Are these workers less worthy of protection from unfair dismissal? Does that mean that the bread winners in the family who work for a small business are less entitled to protection than someone who works for a large company? In the case of the Territory, as I said, would it not be the case that most people in private industry work for employers who employ fewer than 100 people? It would seem to me that the family of a worker in a small business could be at more risk of financial hardship because there are no unfair dismissal rights.
I note that the Western Australian Nationals have raised the same concern. I will read from a media clip from the ABC about the Western Australian Nationals on industrial relations changes:
- The Western Australian Nationals have called on the federal government to water down some of its proposed industrial
relations reforms, saying the changes go too far.
State Nationals President Wendy Duncan said of particular concern to her is the government’s bid to exempt businesses
employing fewer than 100 people from unfair dismissal laws.
‘If the dismissal is unfair, then workers should have some redress’, she said.
Ms Duncan said the same standards should apply to all businesses, regardless of their size.
‘The Nationals really are wary of too much freedom in IR policy. We have to make sure that vulnerable groups like youth
and women do have the protection that they need.’
I read later on, of course, that they do not support the full sale of Telstra. I might put on record now that I do not support the full sale of Telstra. It should stay as it is, but I digress.
While I have talked about unfair dismissal, there is another side to the coin, especially in the Territory. There needs to be a more streamlined and practical approach that will give employers the right to sack workers who are not doing the right thing. That has been one of the concerns for small business; they sometimes get tangled up in this process where you have someone who, for instance, does not turn up for work every day on time and they need to get rid of that person. They have a lot of difficulty trying to get rid of that person, and it can be very frustrating.
Sometimes when we talk about the worker, and this is important, we forget that the boss is a worker who, in many cases in small business, works long hours, who takes the financial stress and risk, who has to fill out all the BAS statements and all the red tape and has to spend a lot of time away from his or her family. Sometimes when they employ a worker, they expect a similar commitment. It is sad that when we talk about ‘the worker’ from a Labor perspective, it tends to be ‘the employee’, but in the case of a lot of people, like the farmer, the self-employed person, or the small business that might only have a part-time worker during the week, we forget that they are workers, and they work long hours. They do not belong to a union. They do not have a union; they might have a business association of some sort, but they do not have the protection of a union.
Sometimes that boss, who is working hard, when he employs someone, expects that person to put in the same effort – the long hours and all that sort of stuff – and if they do not, there is a risk they get the sack because they will say: ‘You are not doing as much of the work I want’. Then, certainly, the employee needs protection, and that is the balance we have to find. I do not know whether that balance is here, but I do become concerned when I read from the Commonwealth government’s Our plan for a modern workplace paper. Besides saying it will exempt businesses that employ up to 100 employees from unfair dismissal laws, it says that the government will continue to protect all employees by providing a remedy for unlawful termination which prohibits dismissal for discriminatory grounds such as race, colour, sex, union membership, pregnancy and so on. The problem I have with that is that it does not protect a person if they are unfairly dismissed. For example: ‘He did not turn up today so I am going to sack him’, and the fact is that he had a flat tyre. It does not cover that. That is a major fault with this. It should not matter, as the Western Australian Nationals have said, whether you are employing one or 1000. Each person is important, each person has a family and they should not be dismissed unfairly.
They appear to be going to change the time that the unfair dismissal laws can apply. It exists at the moment at three months. They want to extend that to six months. I am concerned about that. Does that mean an employer can employ someone for three months and then sack them and there is no redress because the unfair dismissal laws will not apply? If you take this law and extend that to six months, you can discharge that person within six months without any protection. I am concerned about that. However, I need to see the legislation, and that is one of the difficulties in trying to debate this today. It is very difficult to say that will be the case.
I read what the Commonwealth government has produced; I have also read what the Labor Party produced, and how am I to say which is true? One, I have not seen the legislation, and, two, I do not have the proof because there are claims like communities will suffer, pay packets will be cut, the lowest paid will get less, extra pay for extra hours will go, flexible hours will be the norm, benefits will be lower. A lot of those things already apply in the Northern Territory, anyway. I have heard people respond and say that is not true.
I have the Labor Party and I have the Liberal Party’s view. I want to see the legislation. Until I see the legislation, it is going to be very hard to discuss this thoroughly.
There has been much said about the Australian pay commission, but I have not had time to look at this in detail. The minister dismissed the idea of the commission. His argument seemed more based on the theory that the system was all right before, therefore the government must be up to something tricky. Maybe. From my little bit of knowledge, and I may be wrong, we are trying to copy a process that is used in England. I gather we are using the same model that they use in England. The Liberal government here has borrowed that model and brought it to Australia. I would be interested in knowing whether there is something wrong with the British version. I do not know.
Dr Burns: Well, it was Mrs Thatcher!
Mr WOOD: There has been a Labour government there for a long time. If it was bad …
Dr Burns: That is why they had to bring it in.
Mr WOOD: If the Labour government thought it was crook, you would think they would have scrapped it by now.
There is also the Australian Fair Pay and Conditions Standards and the role of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission that needs to be looked at. Again, with such short notice, it is very difficult to give you a meaningful reply to those sorts of things.
I have concerns about where working conditions are going, but I also have concerns about small business because those people work long hours, they also have families and they need some protection as well.
I am concerned that with all these free trade agreements, for instance, where we get cheap imports into our country, such as fruit and vegetables from China, that to compete, we have to lower our standard of living by lowering wages and working longer hours. I do not agree with bringing vegetables and fruit in from other countries, saying it is a level playing field when you know the people who have worked to produce those goods got $1 a day or something, and we have to compete when we are paying $100 a day. I do not think that is fair. I do not believe we should be lowering our wages to try to become more competitive with a country that pays terrible wages.
I am concerned that less time is given to the family because we have to work longer hours. I know the Deputy Chief Minister will go crook at me when I talk about the eight-hour day and the eight-hour recreation and the eight-hours sleep; the principle behind it was to protect the family and worker, to give the worker adequate time to earn a living and adequate time with the family. Regardless whether it is eight, eight, eight, the principle should still apply.
One thing I was pleased to see is that Kevin Andrews is supporting a Senate inquiry into the legislation. He said in a door-stop …
Mr Henderson: The Prime Minister knocked it on the head.
Mr WOOD: Yes, he might have, but I will get to that. Don’t you worry about that. Don’t you worry about that, member for Wanguri.
Kevin Andrews said: ‘We will probably set up a Senate inquiry. This is something one would expect will be a Senate inquiry.’ I agree, good idea; that is what the Senate is for. If the Prime Minister is pouring cold water on it, I disagree; that is where this legislation should go because if you put it to a Senate inquiry, we might be able to hear about some of the issues we have raised. If they travel around the country, as committees do, that would be good. I support an inquiry.
I have 10 seconds. When I grew up …
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, I move an extension of time of 10 minutes to allow the member to conclude his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I know we keep church and state separate, but I grew up in a Catholic school, and one thing that always stayed in my mind was an encyclical by Pope Leo XIII in 1891 …
Mr Kiely: I knew you would quote that!
Mr WOOD: I knew you knew I would. It must have been important; I have known it all my life. I pulled it off the web site today. The principles on which it was written are relevant, regardless of whether you are Christian or Callithumpian. He said, at that time, that these are the things we should consider: the recognition of human dignity; the protection of basic economic and political rights including the right to a just wage and to organise associations or unions to defend just claims; the right to private property; the rights of labour over capital; the just organisation of society for the common good.
Those principles still apply. There may be some variations because I presume the economy in 1891 was slightly different from the economy of 2005. However, those principles remain important and still apply to all workers. I include in my definition of ‘workers’ employers, especially small businesses. As I said before, do not leave them out of the equation when you talk about workers.
The member for Goyder would know how many small businesses are in Coolalinga. They employ very few people and work long hours; they are workers. As much as I know you come from the union perspective of workers, as a parliament, we should be there to protect all workers. In the end, we need to make sure that whatever legislation goes through, which we do not have a lot of control over, the family is protected because it is under so much pressure today. I heard the member for Blain talking about productivity. Productivity is fine, but productivity is not the end of the world. If it forces workers to work longer hours and be away from their families longer, then I do not think productivity should be the main goal.
We need to find a balance. If we can get legislation through that will find that balance so we are a competitive country but, at the same time, recognise the importance of looking after our workers and their families, it will be good.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Speaker, I rise to support the Minister for Public Employment’s motion on the Commonwealth government’s undermining of Territorians’ pay and working conditions.
As a 15 year-old, I was riding home on a tram from Melbourne one day and went past the local CES office. I went into the office and asked: ‘Are there any apprenticeships for fitters and turners going in the area?’ This was over in Collingwood, and they said: ‘Yes’. They sent me down to Gregory Steel, a knife factory in Johnson Street. I walked in there as just over a 15 year-old, I was 15 in August and this was at Christmas time. I spoke to the boss, spoke to the foreman and was told: ‘Okay, come back on Monday. You are starting as a first year apprentice in fitting and turning on probation’. I kicked off my working life as a 15 year-old in a factory in a fitting and turning apprenticeship, much like the member for Drysdale was a fitter and turner. I also share a bit of working history with my colleague, the member for Wanguri.
I was earning the grand sum of $17 a week. Might I say, Madam Speaker, $2 of that went on tax. I had a take-home pay of $15. I remember that quite well. Now, I got home and my mother, who was also in the metal trades as a process worker in another factory, asked me about my wage and I said: ‘Well, mum, I got 15 bucks’, and she immediately hit me $5 for board, but she did not mind about the wage because I was protected by the award. I did not have to negotiate my wage. It was set in concrete: this is what a first year apprentice fitter and turner gets, $17. That is all I had to do to make sure I was getting paid the right amount, the fair amount for the work I was putting in as a trainee.
Here we are many, many years later and you have to wonder what it is like for a 15 year-old today entering the work force. It is not good in all cases. Have a look at South Australia. On 5 August, the South Australian Industrial Relations Court ordered a Baker’s Delight franchise to pay $1438.34 to a 15-year old worker, who was a Year 10 student who had been engaged in 2003, to make up for an under-payment under an Australian Workplace Agreement. These are the things that the Commonwealth government is saying are the best, most manageable, productive gain contracts that we should be putting our workers on.
Dr Burns: Best thing since sliced bread!
Mr KIELY: Best thing since sliced bread, according to the Commonwealth government and that is what they want us all on. They want to get off the collective bargaining. What did the judge say in his summing up of that case? Justice Peter McCusker, in the matter of Yurong Holdings Pty Ltd v Renella [2005] SAIRC 60, said:
- In considering this submission I leave aside for the moment the manifest disadvantage of the respective bargaining positions
of a 15 year-old Year 10 student negotiating her terms with an experienced businessman. Moreover I accept it is lawful to require
a new employee to sign an AWA as a pre-condition of employment irrespective of the fact it this is hardly a matter of real choice
from the employee’s point of view. But the plain fact is that under this AWA the respondent worker was paid grossly less than
she was entitled to as a minimum under the State Award. She received in wages $4333.65. She should have received $5772.01.
The AWA sought to cut her minimum entitlement by approximately 25 per cent. The appellant’s contention that the other AWAs
all of which contained the same terms …
These are the other AWAs in that workplace:
- … passed the “no disadvantage test” does nothing to improve its argument. Rather it shows a troubling situation. To the degree
the appellant seeks relief under the equity and good conscience provision, I reject the argument.
He dismissed the appeal, which was brought by the employer against the decision of a magistrate.
Here was a 15-year old going to work in a business and – bang! - 25% under: ‘Sign this AWA’. Let us have a look at some of the clauses of the AWA that this 15-year old was required to sign.
- 2. Dates of Operation
This AWA shall take effect as at the 11th day of April 2003 or the day after the approval notice is issued from the Employment
Advocate (whichever is the later) and expire three years hence.
- 5. Hourly Rate of Pay
The hourly rate of pay of $16.70 applies at all times. A pay increase of 30 cents will apply from 1/12/03 and an additional
40 cents from 1/12/03…
- 7. No Annual Leave; Leave Loading or Sick Leave
The above rate incorporates a component for annual leave, annual leave loading and sick leave, and as such, those
provisions do not apply.
8. Meal Breaks and Rest Pauses …
Where the employer is unable to give the employee a meal break in accordance with the Award, the employee shall
receive two 10 minute breaks in lieu.
There are many people in our work force who do not have the ability to bargain, who will go for a job and they, too, will be faced with that. There is no point saying it is not going to happen. It does, and there are 50 other people on AWAs with this employer who will probably be facing the same sort of thing. This is the current situation and you have to question what the future will be if this is the practice that is going on now.
No, there is no legislation before Parliament in Canberra saying exactly what the changes are, but we hear one story from the federal Treasurer, who is corrected by the Prime Minister. No one really knows what is going on. I think the federal Treasurer is trying to tell the truth, but the Prime Minister realises what a can of worms it is and is trying to hose it down.
This is the judgment of a court; it is a public document. Everyone can have a look at it. This is the future for our workers under the IR changes proposed by the Commonwealth government.
The member for Blain was saying this is becoming adversarial and what he is hearing in the debate is the workers over here and the bosses over there, and you have to remember the bosses have a stake in this, too, and let us not be so divisive. The IR changes are not all that bad and let us give it a go.
These changes are bad for small business. I thank the minister for his opening remarks on the motion because my ears pricked up when he said this, and I started wondering where this is leading to. I will take you along on a trip shortly. The minister said:
- The award system has also provided benefits for employers, particularly small employers, without the resources to
negotiate the conditions of employment and rates of pay with their own employees on a regular basis. The ability to
know that there is going to be a rate for a particular occupation and that rate is not going to be undercut by the
competition has been of assistance to those businesses without the inclination to go into battle with their own work
force every couple of years.
Madam Speaker, I have friends in the building game and they bid for tenders. Time and again, I run into them and ask how they went on a tender and they say they were unsuccessful because they were undercut. So you comment on it being a bit tough and maybe the price was a bit high, but that is business, that is how it is and that is the competitive nature. Let me give you this scenario: John the builder tenders for a subdivision to roof 20-odd houses on the basis that he has five people working for him and has to pay them the award rate of $20 hour – I am using nice round figures for convenience sake. Along comes Bill the builder who says he will undercut the tender and go in by a couple of thousand less. He can undercut on the award, get his workers onto an AWA and instead of paying these blokes $20 an hour, he can slip them in at $15, whatever he wants. He is going to undercut it, and he picks up the tender because he is the lowest price. The developer who wants those roofs on takes Bill because he has the best price.
So the bloke who is charging $18 an hour has to screw down the people who are working for him on the AWA to $15 an hour. They are on-site, they are working, they are not happy because their wages have been decreased. They are hunting around looking for other opportunities for work, and they will get it. They will find work elsewhere. Then what happens? You have a subcontractor on-site who can no longer finish the job, the job is held up, the price goes up, he goes out of business, he has debts, and he takes other small businesses, his suppliers, with him. We see this now in the building industry and we will see it more in the future because of the undercutting that will flow through these AWAs. This is how business will operate, how these small contractors will try to stay in business.
To say: ‘Look, it is the worker only who is going suffer from this’, is not correct; it is going to be the small business operators that will suffer. The only organisations that are going to benefit out of the proposed industrial relations changes being mooted by the Howard Liberal government is big business, the big end of town. They will be the ones. The worker on the wages, the small businessman, the small employer of five or 10 people, they, too, will feel the brunt of these changes. They will go out of business, and they will take many a supplier with them. There will be a knock-on effect through the whole of the economy. Do not say that we are running union line, and only trying to protect a few workers because that is not the case.
This goes to the crux of the economy. That is what it is all about. These IR changes are ideologically-based; they are not grounded in any true economic rationale. It is something that the Prime Minister, as my colleague, the member for Brennan, mentioned, has flagged since 1984. We know that the Prime Minister is not going to be around for ever and a day. He wants to leave his mark. He has been looking at this since 1984 and now he has the opportunity. He has the power and the will to do it. It is because of his arrogance on this issue that he will be the greatest destructive force that this country has seen on the economic and industrial relations front for many, many years - probably about 70 or 80 years.
He is not the first conservative prime minister to have a go at the working conditions of the working man. If you have a look at our history, in 1926, Bruce tried to abolish the Arbitration Commission. Might I mention that 1926 and 1928 was when the recent innovation of a 44-hour week had been introduced into the country and, even then, the conservatives were up in arms, saying this is too much of a deal for the working class man. It was not a matter of eight hours, eight hours, eight hours. It was less than that, member for Nelson. We have been struggling as a community to make our lifestyle choices, to make this a fair and better community, all the way back.
Back in 1928, what happened? The Labor opposition of the day wanted to have a look at this legislation that was being mooted, and Bruce would not show it to them. He told them categorically: ‘You are not going to get a look at this until the second reading speech’. That sounds familiar, doesn’t it? There was the same arrogance then, with an attack on workers’ rights, as what is happening now. That was 1928! The same ideology. They believe we should wind back the clock in the national interest, and let us have a go at it.
The same tactics as are being applied now did not work, and the biggest shock of all for Bruce was that he was rolled in parliament. He went to the people on a double dissolution and he lost his seat in a landslide win to the ALP. That is where this is heading. This will tear apart the Liberal Party.
Mr Mills: You reckon?
Mr KIELY: Yes, the Nationals are onto it. You do not get the church groups coming and the conservative elements of the community coming out against this sort of legislation if it is not wrong.
The member for Nelson was talking about the obligations of government to family, and he is right. I do not often agree with this fellow over here, as people would know, but he is right on this. It is a fundamental go at all the families that is going to wind the industrial relations clock in this country all the way back to the 1890s.
We heard the member for Nelson talk about Pope Leo in 1891. When William Guthrie Spence became the foundation President of the Amalgamated Shearers’ Union, he ran up against the same thing. The squattocracy was giving him heaps when he had the temerity to band the workers together to try to get a fair deal. All the workers were asking for was dignity and to be treated better than the cattle and sheep that the squattocracy owned. That is what this is about, make no mistake. We are going back to the bad old days with this legislation. It is ideologically driven and has no basis in taking the community forward.
You can see the similarities of this attack on with the attack 70 years ago in 1928 on the 44-hour week. It has its roots right back in 1891, when we saw the emergence of an egalitarian society, which is a great thing and has made this country the great country it is today and the envy of the majority of the peoples of the world. Let us keep it that way.
Out of 1891, there came many a class hero. One of the best and strongest voices for the people of the day was a bloke called Henry Lawson. I would like to wind up my contribution today …
Mr Wood interjecting.
Mr KIELY: If we can hear from Pope Leo, we certainly can hear about an icon of Australian culture, Henry Lawson, who wrote The Ballad of 1891:
The price of wool was falling in 1891
- The men who owned the acres saw something must be done
‘We will break the Shearers' Union, and show we're masters still
And they'll take the terms we give them, or we'll find the ones who will’.
From Claremont to Barcaldine, the shearers' camps were full
Ten thousand blades were ready to strip the greasy wool
When through the west like thunder, rang out the union's call
‘The sheds'll be shorn union or they won't be shorn at all’.
Oh, Billy Lane was with them, his words were like a flame
The flag of blue above them, they spoke Eureka's name
‘Tomorrow’, said the squatters, ‘they'll find it does not pay
We're bringing up free labourers to get the clip away’
‘Tomorrow’, said the shearers, ‘they may not be so keen
We can mount three thousand horses, to show them what we mean’.
‘Then we'll pack the west with troopers, from Bourke to Charters Towers
You can have your fill of speeches but the final strength is ours’.
‘Be damned to your six-shooters, your troopers and police
The sheep are growing heavy, the burr is in the fleece’
‘Then if Nordenfeldt and Gatling won't bring you to your knees
We'll find a law’, the squatters said, ‘that's made for times like these’.
To trial at Rockhampton the fourteen men were brought
The judge had got his orders, the squatters owned the court
But for every one that's sentenced, ten thousand won't forget
Where they jail someone for striking, it's a rich man's country yet.
Mr HENDERSON (Business and Economic Development): Madam Speaker, I contribute tonight on behalf of the Health Minister who had a prepared statement to put to the House on how these proposed changes could impact in the health system across the Northern Territory. Before I read the minister’s statement, I have some comments.
There are a couple of fundamental issues here. Members have spoken about one, which is that this is one of the most profound and far-reaching proposed changes, and I accept the fact that we have not seen the detail of the legislation yet, to the workplace that Australia has seen in 100 years.
The Prime Minister has a couple of hurdles here. One, he does not have a mandate for this. The Leader of the Opposition said in her contribution that there was some mention in the election campaign that there would be this significant change to the industrial relations system. I challenge the Leader of the Opposition to present the statements or policy position of the Liberal Party in the election campaign that said they were going to strip back the powers of the Industrial Relations Commission to set minimum awards, and the other proposed changes we are yet to see in legislation. There was no debate on this during the federal election campaign. On such profound changes to the Australian workplace, which will affect every worker in Australia, the Prime Minister has no mandate.
The second issue is why we need to do it. There is a great saying: ‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’. Peter Costello has been Treasurer for nine years, coming on for 10 years, and if you add up all his statements during that time - surplus budgets, the economy is booming, we are a leading economy in the world, we survived the Asian financial crisis, we have companies at the top end of town making record profits, we have the lowest unemployment rates that Australia has seen for many years, decades even - there is a fundamental test for the Prime Minister and the Liberal-National Coalition. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
Australians are a pretty laconic lot and do not normally fight back unless someone has come along to take something from them. The Prime Minister and the Liberal-National Party Coalition, which has a majority in the Senate for the first time in 27 years, with no mandate, want to put in place a new system that is going to take conditions of employment of working people in Australia. Australians are going to fight back.
It is the height of arrogance of the Prime Minister and the Liberal-National Party Coalition, which achieved a majority in the Senate in their own right at the last election, to ram through these proposed charges - I accept the comments that we have not seen the detail yet – but there is no doubt that the fundamentals, as outlined in the Prime Minister’s speech, will see a significant change in the industrial relations climate in Australia.
Why would you try to do that at a time when we have a very robust, booming economy around Australia, with record levels of employment in Australia, with record profits unless it was purely for an ideological commitment that the Prime Minister has? Now, that is fine; that is what politics is all about. Much of it is about ideology and a contest of ideas, but there has been no contest or debate on this issue in an election climate. I believe that Australians are going to rise up on these issues. The union movement, the Labor Party, everyone who is interested in fairness, equity, and balance in our industrial relation system will rise up. That is why this debate is ahead of the legislation.
As people have said, the coalition of groups that are coming together to say: ‘Hey, this looks unfair. This is going to alter the balance of power in the employer-employee relationship and there is no mandate for this’. Church groups have been coming out strongly against the proposals that are generically being flagged. There is going to be a significant blue in the Australian community over these proposed changes. The Prime Minister has no mandate, he has no reason, and fundamentally, these proposed reforms are going to affect every Australian working family and, ultimately, the economy.
That is the challenge and the debate is going to happen over the coming months. The Prime Minister and his Coalition have the capacity to take whatever legislation they want through the parliament and it is going to be interesting to see - and we had the member for Brennan talking about the wets and drys within the Liberal Party - how strongly this Coalition is going to stick together.
I hope that sanity will prevail and if the Prime Minister does want to put these reforms in place, let’s hope they can be delayed long enough in the election cycle so he does take them to the Australian people. If the Australian people give him a mandate for it, I suppose that is fair enough, but I do not think they would.
Mr HENDERSON (for and on behalf of the Minister for Health)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I now move to the statement by my colleague the Health minister:
- The enterprise bargaining agreement process is helping recruit and retain vital health staff in the Northern Territory.
The EBA process in the Territory has delivered some of the best wages and conditions in the country for our
hardworking health professionals. The Territory leads the nation in some areas of health: preventable chronic
disease, and maternal and child health, for example. However, there are national and international shortages of key
health staff such as doctors, nurses and dentists.
Our relatively small size and isolation mean that we face potentially greater difficulties than other jurisdictions in attracting
and retaining health staff. In this environment, it is vital we maintain a system that can continue to deliver nationally
competitive wages and conditions to the health professionals upon whom the health of Territorians depend.
To date, we have been highly successful in recruiting and retaining these staff in a difficult environment. A large part of our
success has been built upon our ability to offer excellent conditions to our staff, negotiated through the EBA process.
There are three key areas in which this government negotiated EBAs in our first term: nurses, doctors, and dentists.
The EBA negotiations for health sector employees are conducted by the Office of the Commissioner for Public
Employment in collaboration with the Department of Health and Community Services and in consultation with NT Treasury.
In our first term, we promised an extra 75 nurses. We actually delivered over 100 across our health system. A key part of
our success in increasing the numbers was our ability to offer highly competitive terms of service for our nurses.
Under this government, nurses have received a 22% salary increase, 7+4+5+3+3. The current EBA covers approximately
1650 Territory nurses and took effect from August 2003.
Try negotiating AWAs with 1650 nurses! You would be bogged down in administration for years.
- The union involved is the Australian Nurses Federation. As well as the 11% wage increase, the current EBA provides some
key benefits, such as:
- an increase in paid maternity leave from 12 to 14 weeks;
- the introduction of a post-graduate qualification allowance of $1500 equal to approximately 3% for selected
specialised areas including operating theatre, critical care, renal, midwifery, mental health and community
care;
- retention of the professional development allowance of $300 or $600 per annum depending on length of
service; and
- agreement to conduct a range of reviews, including: remote area nurses - including staffing levels, on-call
arrangements and relief; enrolled nurses expanding their scope and practice; bed management policies
including efficient and effective patient flow and bottle necks causing staffing issues; urban community
nurses including on-call arrangements, staffing mix, staffing numbers and family friendly rostering;
hospital staffing including on-call arrangements, family friendly rostering, patient acuity, nurse-patient ratios,
staffing mix, training needs and mechanisms for resolving ward staffing issues.
In a situation of national and international shortage of doctors, this government has been highly successful in ensuring
that we are competitive in recruiting and retaining these health professionals. Currently, we have over 90% of our hospital
doctor positions filled.
The current EBA, covering approximately 350 medical officers, took effect from July 2003. Since 2000, the medical officers
have received an increase of 21% at 4+3+3+5+3+3. The union involved is the Australian Salaried Medical Officers Federation.
The current EBA provides some key benefits such as:
- an 11% increase in salary over three years;
- an additional increase of $10 000 for hospital specialists;
- a rural medical officer restructure, increasing salaries by 5% to 11% and including the introduction of
$15 000 recruitment package;
- an increase in paid maternity leave from 12 to 14 weeks; and
- a clause facilitating the review of employment arrangements for overseas-trained medical officers.
- Dentists: in the context of national and international dentist shortages, we currently have a high level of dentist positions filled.
At present, approximately 13.6 of the 16 full-time equivalent positions occupied.
I don’t know how you get 0.6 of a dentist, but there you go; they are the numbers I have.
- Since 2001, dentists have received salary increases of 20%. In addition, a restructure introduced on 30 June 2004 has
resulted in a further 5% increase for the majority of dentists employed in the NTPS. The latest EBA took effect in August 2002.
Madam Speaker, the current industrial relations system, with its emphasis on collective bargaining, delivers the kind of wages
and conditions in the NT that we need to recruit and retain vital health staff. The current system allows workers to take collective
action, including industrial action where necessary. We don’t always agree with their decision to do so, but we support their right
to take such action.
The Commonwealth government’s threatened IR reforms will not only take money out of Territorians’ pockets and make them work
longer for less, they will take away the rights of nurses and other health professionals to act collectively.
Madam Speaker, I support the motion.
That account of the EBA deals with some of the flexibility that has been negotiated into those EBA arrangements for our
health professionals. We hear the Prime Minister, but we do not hear much of Kevin Andrews and he has responsibility as
the minister for this, but he has been pretty much muzzled.
I noticed that the guru that the opposition brought up from Liberal Party headquarters to help them in the election campaign, one
Ian Henke, has now been hand-picked by the Prime Minister and put into Andrews’ office to coordinate the $20m campaign to try
to sell this to Australians. A lot of the talk is about …
Mr Stirling: He’d want to go better than he went here, wouldn’t he?
Mr HENDERSON: Or in Western Australia. There is some hope yet if Mr Ian Henke is coordinating the campaign on this because he does not have a great track record to date.
The issue of flexibility is there within the current EBA framework for employers and employees to either negotiate directly at the workplace level, or through a union, to try to get those flexibilities that the business needs into those agreements.
What this will be, what these AWAs are all about, what this attack on collective bargaining is about is dog eat dog. It is who will work for the least conditions and for the least amount of pay that some employers will foist on them. It won’t be all employers. As Business minister, I get around the community, and most businesses operate ethically and fairly, and they realise that the best value they have in their business is generated by the people who work for them.
Most business people do the right thing, but there are some out there who do not. Those people will use this as an opportunity to sell their jobs to the people who will bid the lowest in terms of the wages they are prepared to accept and the conditions they are prepared to work under, and it is those people at the bottom of the labour market who have the least capacity, the fewest skills to negotiate with those employers who will come off worse.
It is really going to hurt kids in families because there is going to be less coming into the home and less for everyone involved. This is a direct attack on the rights of Australians. The Prime Minister has no mandate for this, the government has no mandate for this, and there is no compelling reason in terms of Australia’s economic performance or economic future that has been articulated to date to explain why we need to attack the conditions of working people in Australia.
Madam Speaker, I support the motion.
Dr BURNS (Public Employment): Madam Speaker, first I compliment all speakers on this motion.
It has been an interesting debate and there has been a wide range of opinions and elements of the debate that warrant reply. I will try to do that with each of the speakers.
The Leader of the Opposition talked about the unions and the Labor Party running a scare campaign and basically said: ‘There is no legislation before the Commonwealth parliament. You are being a little bit premature by bringing this motion into this parliament’. We have the Prime Ministerial statement, delivered in May, in which he outlined the core elements of what he is proposing. We have had certain public statements since then, and some of them have been contradictory, but at the bottom of it all, the Commonwealth government is on the record saying that they want to follow the Western Australian model, the so-called second wave, and I demonstrated today that the Western Australian experience has led to lower wages at both ends of the spectrum, particularly for those workers who are disadvantaged and have very little bargaining power, they are the most disadvantaged and the most vulnerable.
I do not believe it is premature for us to bring this motion. There is enough on the record, historically, as the member for Brennan pointed out, and more contemporaneously for us to see what the intent of the Commonwealth government is in this area.
The members for Araluen and Blain talked about development since 1996 in terms of real growth in wages, low unemployment and new jobs, and that is true, but it only reinforces the argument from this side: why would you want to change it? Why would you want to change it if there has been prosperity in Australia, if there has been wages growth, low unemployment, economic prosperity, why do you want to try to fix this thing? That was the very question that Kevin Andrews could not answer when we asked him, very politely, in Melbourne: ‘Why do you want to change it? Tell us what the problem is and we will work together to try to fix it’. I do not think that is really an argument.
The member for Araluen said that there would be higher productivity under this agenda of the Commonwealth government. The evidence by researchers shows that there is no higher productivity under this sort of industrial relations agenda with AWAs. In fact, the evidence and the papers that I have seen point to just the opposite at individual, collective and national levels. When you compare Australia and New Zealand, when New Zealand went down this path their productivity plateaued; Australia’s productivity went up. That was the first time there had been a significant disparity between the productivity of Australia and New Zealand for a long time - since before the 1950s. I do not think productivity is an argument, either.
In fact, I have been advised that industries with the most AWAs have had the lowest increase in productivity. There is a long history of research indicating a strong link between unions and productivity. Research also indicates that managers think that individual contracts improve worker commitment, whereas workers feel blackmailed into signing AWAs. They are some of the evidence and issues surrounding AWAs and productivity.
The member for Araluen also quoted from the article by Paul Kelly. I take on board what Kelly said about some of these issues. However, there were some things that caught my eye in Kelly’s article in The Australian. His opening paragraph was this:
John Howard will pay about $3bn to complete the sale of Telstra, a reasonable political deal overall, but the price to make
his industrial reforms more palatable is less tangible and riskier for Australia.
They were some of the comments Paul Kelly made in The Australian. He also said that electoral support for economic reform is insipid, with 60% opposing industrial changes. They were AC Nielsen July figures. He also pointed to the fact that Prime Minister Howard, in previous elections, has run on a ‘no losers’ platform. He said:
Howard ran on a ‘no losers’ platform in 1996 and it was a foundation of his 1996 industrial reforms.
That was the quote that I used a couple of times today. It is interesting that neither John Howard nor Kevin Andrews will sign on the dotted line to give assurances that no worker will be worse off under his industrial relations reforms.
The member for Araluen talked about mortgages and the premier team in Canberra and how they are delivering on promises in relation to mortgages and that, basically, this was an important element. I remind her of the story that I was told about the bus driver in Western Australia who lost his house because of the IR reforms in that state.
The member for Nhulunbuy contrasted the fact that, coming into the Territory election, there was ample evidence that we were quite front and centre about our position on industrial relations matters. I have a whole series of media releases from before, during and quite soon after the election. We have been quite clear all of the way through on our position, but you cannot say the same for the Commonwealth government. They were not front and centre on their industrial relations agenda during the recent federal election. It is not good enough to point to the fact that they have legislation on the books that was knocked back by the Senate and this is their position. They never put it as a position in the federal election campaign.
The member for Nhulunbuy also made a very good point about AWAs. He said: ‘If they are so good, how come only 2.4% of the Australian work force has gone onto AWAs since 1996?’ I do not think they are very good. I do not think that Australian workers think they are very good, either.
The member for Brennan gave a very good speech, and amply demonstrated his experience in the industrial relations arena and his grasp on conservative party politics. He amply demonstrated that this has been an ideological battle in the Liberal Party since 1983. I will come back to this ideological battle.
The member for Millner detailed Northern Territory Public Service awards and conditions. That was further amplified by the member for Wanguri when he was talking about some of the EBAs, particularly in the health area, that have occurred over the last few years.
There is a whole range of conditions that have been built into those awards to make it more attractive, particularly for health staff to move to the Northern Territory, to encourage them to come here and to retain them. You have to contrast that against the five core conditions that the Prime Minister outlined in his Prime Ministerial statement. Everything apart from those five core conditions, which are pretty basic, is up for grabs. The five core elements are: a minimum rate of pay $12.75 per hour; eight days sick leave; four weeks annual leave; unpaid parental leave; and weekly working hours. Apart from those five key elements, everything is up for grabs.
Madam Speaker, the member for Blain was up-front. He said he does not support the motion. I am not sure whether other members of the opposition do or do not support the motion. He said he needed to have something of substance before the Commonwealth parliament before he could make decisions. He also said that he was somewhat comforted that it was going to go to a Senate committee for consideration. He also talked a lot about trust. He talked about trust in terms of politics …
Mr Stirling: Like the nuclear dump?
Dr BURNS: Well, I was going to raise that. With that, there was a committee somewhere that actually removed all the locations, other than the Territory, and put three Territory names in there. If you have a majority in the Senate, a Senate committee could be seen as a rubber stamp for your agenda. There is a bit of mistrust out there about the agenda and I certainly do not share the member for Blain’s trust of the Commonwealth government in relation to this matter.
He said that things had become divisive in terms of polarising the workers and unions and the bosses. I think that you will find many bosses around the place in small business will not support this industrial relations agenda because it introduces a whole element of chaos and insecurity in there. The Industrial Relations Commission and the Industrial Relations system have served Australia well for the past 105 years, and has brought a lot of certainty to both workers and those in business.
I have covered some of the areas that he raised in terms of productivity and increases in wages and unemployment and jobs. He rounded off by talking about people having union blood in their veins and said that he came from a farming background. I should not have to remind the member for Blain that his professional life was as a teacher. I find it quite unusual for someone who has been in the teaching profession never to have been a member of an education union.
Mr Mills: Never was.
Dr BURNS: Never was! I find that unusual, but that is your choice, member for Blain. You talked about the need to move forward, that we are living in an outdated system and we need to move forward into a brave new world. From my perspective, member for Blain, what John Howard and the Commonwealth government is proposing is taking us right back a century before we had an industrial relations system and where workers were at the mercy of bosses to a large degree. I do not really see what we are trying to protect here as anything else but protecting a fair and just system.
I was very impressed by the member for Arnhem. She talked about the need for this in terms of what is happening in the community and this motion before parliament as action that is required to stop legislation coming into place. It was talked about down there in Melbourne: not only will the states battle this out if necessary in the High Court in terms of the constitutional basis of what the Commonwealth is doing trying to bring industrial relations reform in on the back of corporations powers, but also we will fight it out in the forum of public opinion.
It is important to be very active to stop the negative parts of this legislation coming into force. She also pointed to the support in the general community that was evidenced a few weeks ago, a very large demonstration on the streets of Darwin, which was very heartening.
The member for Arnhem talked about the long fight that women in the workplace have had for equality. She talked about her membership of the Australian Journalists Association and how the union, through awards, safeguarded her position when she went away and had children. She was able to come back to her job. That is very important security for women in terms of their career and family.
She also pointed to the fact that women who are on AWAs earn 11% less than those on enterprise or collective agreements. She emphasised the importance of family. She also emphasised the fact that collective bargaining is a right under international treaties, as is the right to join the union. Along with the member for Arnhem, I agree that these things are under threat.
The member for Nelson talked about AWAs being no different from contracts. He said there are a few government employees who are on AWAs or contracts, particularly at the higher levels. He may very well be very well right, but the majority of Northern Territory government employees are on enterprise agreements and it is a very important part of the process and the relationship of government with its employees. That would be put at risk through the Commonwealth government’s industrial relation agenda.
He said it is okay if someone chooses an AWA, but there should be a choice to be on an award. I do not think that has been the experience. It certainly was not the experience of the Year 10 student the member for Sanderson referred to. Her case certainly indicates that employers will twist employees’ arms, particularly those who are a bit vulnerable, to sign up to AWAs.
He rightly pointed to the furphy that the Commonwealth government is running about dismissals and unfair dismissals. They are saying if your business has fewer than 100 employees, you cannot have unfair dismissal, but if you have 100, you can. What is the difference between employee 99 and employee 101? If it is unfair, it is unfair.
The member for Nelson also pointed to the fact that basically there is a difference between unfair dismissal and unlawful dismissal. In the advertising on which the Commonwealth government has already embarked, they muddy the water and allow people to believe that unlawful dismissal is equivalent to unfair dismissal. They are saying that they are not going to do away with unlawful dismissal, but the fact is that they are trying to white ant unfair dismissal.
I will jump over to the member for Wanguri who spoke on behalf of the member for Stuart as Health minister. He detailed, as I said before, the importance of EBAs to recruit and retain staff within the health system. The member for Wanguri also highlighted the fact that this is a fundamental issue. This whole issue of industrial relations is a fundamental issue. He also talked about the absence of anything front and centre in the federal election campaign and said the Commonwealth government has no mandate in this matter. He questioned the reasons for doing this and said that Australians will fight back on this issue. So they will, Madam Speaker.
Turning, finally, to the comments by the member for Sanderson, which I thought were very good. He talked about his own experience as a 15 year-old caught under an award and contrasted that with the exploitation of a 15 year-old by Baker’s Delight in South Australia who was getting 25% less than she should have. He highlighted in the judgment that was handed down that the AWA sought to cut wages.
Madam Speaker, that is what this is all about: AWAs under the Howard government agenda seek to cut wages and conditions of workers. The experience of that 15-year-old, if this comes in to law, is going to be so widespread. It is going to happen not only to 15 year-olds, but people right throughout the work force.
The member for Sanderson also talked about the need for certainty for small business. He talked about ideology, the ideology of the Liberal Party versus family and dignity, and that has been a bit of a theme here. Getting back to the article by Paul Kelly, he said:
- Howard so far refuses to give a guarantee that no worker will be worse off.
Towards his final paragraph, he said:
- His policy will fail if it puts ideology before economic reality and social tolerance.
I would add social justice to that sentence because this is all about social justice. It was interesting for me to read a newspaper article quite soon after the election that gave a profile of the member for Araluen. Right at the bottom, it listed interests. I was amazed to see the member for Araluen cite social justice as an interest. Madam Speaker, social justice is not an interest; it is a core value.
Mr KIELY: Madam Speaker, I move that the minister be granted an extension of time to conclude his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, it is certainly a core value of the Labor Party, which grew out of the workers movement and has put social justice at the very core of its being, at the very core of its policies.
I contrast that with the Liberal Party. History has been discussed today. Reading through Don Watson’s biography of Paul Keating, he deals with some of the happenings in the 1980s and early 1990s within the Liberal Party. Basically, at that stage, the Liberal Party had Fightback under which the Coalition proposed a $3 per hour wage for 15 to 18 year-olds, and a weekly rate for workers that was only $8.10 more than the dole. They were running on the premise at that stage that unemployment was a product of high wages. The reasons have changed a bit in the decade that has gone, but they always find a reason to do this sort of thing. It did not go down very well. Quoting from Don Watson’s book:
- The Catholic Social Welfare Commission was among the first to object. One journalist, Geoffrey Barker said:
‘The Liberal Party reflected a shrivelled concept of justice and dignity.’
Social justice lies at the heart of Labor values. We are about family, we are about protecting those who are the most vulnerable, who are the most disadvantaged. I believe these proposals by the Liberal Party undermine the whole system of industrial relations. Far from giving security to workers, this regime is going to throw people out of work and inflict stress upon the families.
I will be saddened if members opposite do not support the motion because the core of what we are asking here is in part (b). It says we call upon the Prime Minister to give a categorical assurance that no Northern Territory worker will be worse off as a result of the Commonwealth’s planned industrial relations legislation.
Madam Speaker, this is a very important issue. It has been debated throughout the morning and this afternoon. It is a crucial issue and I believe we need to be very clear where we stand on it. I commend the motion to the House.
Motion agreed to.
BATCHELOR INSTITUTE OF INDIGENOUS TERTIARY EDUCATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 8)
Continued from 30 June 2005.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, now we attend to affairs pertaining to the authority of this parliament.
This legislation is supported by opposition. It indicates procedural change to facilitate greater accountability at the managerial level of Batchelor Institute. Our reading of it leads us to support it without concern.
However, whilst we are speaking of Batchelor Institute, I wish to add to comments that have been made in the past in the previous session of parliament. My comments are not directly about this legislation, however, they concern the future of Batchelor Institute. There have been comments, unofficial and official, formal and informal, from members opposite and their counterparts in the Commonwealth parliament and, I might add, by the federal minister for Education. They all seem to be of one accord in respect of Batchelor Institute becoming a part of Charles Darwin University.
Maybe I am the only one to express great caution at the way in which that issue is addressed for the very reason that if that is the direction the institute should go, it should be a decision made by the institute. I am concerned by the nature of the comments that have being made both formally and informally. They indicate that the decision is largely made and it forces Batchelor Institute to deliver an agenda over which they have no direct ownership. That is a concern to me …
Mr Stirling: What comment? Who by? Substantiate your remarks!
Mr MILLS: The minister, whilst he is commenting, should be able to alleviate any concerns that have been aired at the institute that the decision to become part of CDU is the institute’s alone and not achieved by coercion or any outside influence overriding the decision of that community.
That said, the opposition supports the bill.
Mr NATT (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I would like to reinforce the importance of this bill to all honourable members.
The Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training has defined percentage increases in the Commonwealth Grant Scheme’s funding for higher education institutions. These increases are dependant on reforms, compliance and government protocols for not only the Northern Territory, but other states and territories. The changes to this bill reinforce and ensure Bachelor Institute can access maximum Commonwealth funding.
Failure to pass this amendment bill would mean that the Batchelor Institute would not receive the nominated 5% increase in funding for 2006, which equates to approximately $400 000.
The changes are clear. They address governance matters and go to: the expertise of members of the council; explicit duties of the members of council; vacation of office if a member is otherwise disqualified as a director of a company; powers relating to the removal of members; appropriate standards as well as accounting for governance duties of the members of the council; penalties; and breaches.
Adherence to national standards in the regulation of governance of higher education institutions such as the Batchelor Institute is of significant importance. The Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education is an important institution, and it plays a major role in providing indigenous Territorians with education and training opportunities. It is, therefore, important that this government’s protocols are in line with preferred national practice in the Higher Education sector. I urge honourable members to support this bill.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I thank the members for Blain and Drysdale for their supportive comments in relation to this legislation.
Frankly, I was surprised by the member for Blain’s comments that Batchelor Institute will become a part of Charles Darwin University, yet he does not say where this comment was made. He does not say by whom it was made, where he heard it or exactly what the comment was. Henny Penny! The sky is falling in!
We hear this time and time again from the member for Blain. Did he hear it on the bus on the way in this morning, or what?
Mr Mills: Just relax. I will find it for you, do not worry.
Mr STIRLING: Tell us who said it. Was the federal minister, Brendan Nelson? Was it a federal public servant from DEST?
Mr Mills: No.
Mr STIRLING: Was it this government? No, it was not. Was it this member, this minister or any part of the Northern Territory government? No, it was not.
He comes in with these unsubstantiated rubbish allegations, Madam Speaker, and has it flowed out there that somehow the Northern Territory government may be supporting the takeover or amalgamation of BIITE by CDU. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Mr Mills: Good to hear it. I did hear it.
Mr STIRLING: At a recent meeting with the Chairman of the Batchelor Council, Rosemary Kunoth-Monks, and the interim Director, John Ingram, we were very encouraged indeed by the route that Batchelor Institute is taking in terms of it getting back to basics, getting back to delivering rural and remote education, particularly around health worker and teacher education, that they delivered so well for so many years, unfortunately, so many years ago. It is true that they lost steam and direction over the last five or 10 years or thereabouts.
We were very impressed with the honest approach, with the job that they know they have to do, the task before them. They have been working, as has Charles Darwin University, on a memorandum of agreement between the two institutions, and that is exactly as it should be.
Both institutions cross each other’s areas in terms of delivering to remote communities. Both institutions cross paths in relation to the sorts of services and the types of educational programs that they deliver. It is infinitely proper that they should have a memorandum of understanding and agreement between the two institutions where those paths collide and what each is doing. I have heard both sides, both Charles Darwin University and Batchelor, in relation to this agreement.
The member for Blain cannot come in here and say: ‘Oh, I’ve heard a few comments. I’ve heard a bit of commentary around that BIITE’s going to become a part of CDU’. Who said it? Did you make it up? You come in here to muckrake like you normally do. You never substantiate your allegations. You never tell us who said it, so I say it is a lie. I say it is a lie because you will not even say where you heard it.
Dr LIM: A point of order, Madam Speaker.
Mr STIRLING: Well, what substance is there to it?
Dr LIM: The minister is now using the word ‘lies’. Surely, Madam Speaker, he should withdraw that.
Madam SPEAKER: Acting Chief Minister, could you please withdraw?
Mr STIRLING: I will withdraw it is a lie. I will assume it is an untruth, like much of the rubbish the member for Blain brings here to debate.
I thank the member for Drysdale for his support.
Dr LIM: A point of order, Madam Speaker.
Mr STIRLING: Those idiotic comments notwithstanding, I thank the member for Blain …
Madam SPEAKER: Acting Chief Minister, cease. What is your point of order?
Dr LIM: Madam Speaker …
Madam SPEAKER: Hold on.
Mr STIRLING: … for his support for the bill.
Dr LIM: You determined before that words such as lie or untruth in the appropriate context are not allowed. Whether he used the word lie or untruth, he is using it in the same context. I think he should withdraw that, too.
Madam SPEAKER: The Acting Chief Minister did withdraw. He withdrew.
Dr LIM: But not the word ‘untruth’.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that the bill be now read a second time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
CHARLES DARWIN UNIVERSITY AMENDMENT BILL (Serial 9)
Continued from 30 June 2005.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker …
Ms Carney: Do not upset him, Millsy. Don’t upset him.
Mr MILLS: No, I will not.
Mr Stirling: Well, tell the truth! Tell the truth. That is I ask.
Mr MILLS: I am telling the truth, minister, but nonetheless, I did say I would provide the information to your satisfaction. Just calm down.
Similarly, this legislation is supported, of course. It fulfils the same parameters as the previous bill and it has the full support of opposition.
However, I will take this opportunity to reflect on the comments that have been made publicly in the Northern Territory News in the last couple of days regarding the Charles Darwin University.
I agree with the comments made both in the Letters to the Editor and in the Editorial today; it is a very important institution to the Northern Territory. The Territory is a community at the earliest stages of its development, unlike other states. This is why this institution must be afforded very careful support: because of its key role in the development of our community.
However, when continued reports of an unfavourable nature are circulated and substantiated, I am sure you would be satisfied with that, minister. We must be very careful how we respond to them. I do not believe it is satisfactory to provide excuses and reasons as to why it is suffering adverse reporting. We need to go, as a maturing community, to the next stage and to identify exactly what is the problem so that we can then appropriately address it.
That is the stage we must move to quickly because very important institutions like this, in this climate, can be damaged quite seriously and quickly. Therefore, I place a request on the minister of the Crown who carries responsibility for education in the Northern Territory to ensure that there is swift action to strengthen the core of this institution, to respond appropriately in a hands-on and active way to ensure that the adverse reporting goes beyond a report and an explanation and perhaps excuse-making to identification of the core issue and an appropriate response - not for the sake of how the minister or this government appears in the short term, but for the sake of the longer term. It is a very fragile institution. Just as the Territory is developing, it requires a very careful response.
Madam Speaker, we support the legislation.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Blain for his supportive comments.
In relation to his concerns, and they are concerns that the government and I share around the current media reporting of Charles Darwin University and the fact that it rated 38th of 38 universities, I need to make clear where this came from, the whole idea of the survey and the Commonwealth government’s views about it.
It came out of a major finding of a review of higher education in 2002, which culminated in the Our Universities: Backing Australia’s Future package. Although teaching was recognised as a core activity of all higher education institutions, current Commonwealth funding, internal staff promotion practices and institutional prestige tended to reinforce the importance of research performance rather than teaching performance. If that is true, there is a problem for a start.
It is clear that the Commonwealth government believes that rewards and incentives for excellence in learning and teaching will promote the overall quality of the higher education sector, enabling excellence in learning and teaching to be placed alongside delivery of research. That is certainly as it should be in terms of contribution to Australia’s collective knowledge systems.
So a Learning and Teaching Performance Fund was established by the Commonwealth government. This was funding of around $54m in 2006, increasing to $82m in 2007 and $109m in 2008 as part of this renewed focus on teaching quality in Australian universities. This Learning and Teaching Performance Fund is designed to fund those institutions that best demonstrate excellence in learning and teaching. Allocation of funds is in two stages: stage 1 is to determine an institution’s eligibility for funds; and stage 2 is to assess institutional performance in learning and teaching.
I have said quite clearly that we share the concern spelt out by the member for Blain because it does put up negative perceptions around the university. They are unfair at heart but, nonetheless, they are out there and, if they remained unaddressed and ignored, they will serve to damage the institution in the longer term.
I have already arranged to meet with the Vice-Chancellor of Charles Darwin University at the earliest possible time so that I fully understand how these results were arrived at but, most importantly, to find out from the Vice-Chancellor what she and the senior management team at the Charles Darwin University and the university itself is doing about improving its teaching and learning.
We know CDU is the most regional university in Australia. We know it has always faced significant challenges, including, of course, having to have the ability to deliver services right across the length and breadth of the Northern Territory with a dispersed population. However, the Commonwealth government needs to be providing it with adequate funding, not using a survey such as this - which is challengeable in its own right, but I do not want to ignore what the survey is saying - to further disadvantage those institutions in Australia that need the most assistance. It would be akin to me saying: ‘Here is a remote indigenous school that is absolutely failing in its outcomes and in teaching and learning. Let us withdraw the teachers; let us cut the funding to that school’. That is what Brendan Nelson is about here. That is what the Commonwealth government is about.
We look at a school that is struggling in terms of outcomes. We try to analyse why the outcomes are so deficient, and we put in whatever support and resources we can to strengthen the outcomes of that school. We do not cut its funding and we do not try to close it because that is the end line of where the current Commonwealth government’s train of thought would go.
The Commonwealth government and Brendan Nelson, very early on in our term of government at the beginning of 2002, agreed to work with the Northern Territory government to establish Charles Darwin University, to reform the governance arrangements applying to Charles Darwin University and generally overhaul higher education in the Northern Territory. We went into a cooperative arrangement with Brendan Nelson and the Commonwealth government on the basis that there would be increased funding for Charles Darwin University as the reforms rolled through. This legislation today is another step in that roll of reform that we committed to Brendan Nelson very early in 2002.
Not only did we not see the increased funding, it now appears that the Commonwealth government is trying to further pull the rug out from underneath Charles Darwin University in the middle of the process. We were encouraged to go into this partnership with the Commonwealth government from that very point of view. We recognised the university needed change anyway, but to do so with the agreement and in partnership with the Commonwealth government, which would result in a greater funding, was exactly the path that we wanted to go down.
It is probable that CDU has been cut out of any additional funding for crucial teaching and learning development initiatives under what we would see as quite an elitist funding model because it is quite clear that the top ones on the list, the ones that are seen to have performed the best, will get the extra funding. We provide, at Territory government level, around $6.5m for higher education to Charles Darwin University. That is proportionally the biggest contribution of any state or territory government into their higher education system.
The Commonwealth government needs to support all of the 38 universities in Australia, and Charles Darwin University, as I have said, because of its location, is the most regional institution in Australia. The population it serves and the mix of students has its own set of challenges and difficulties. We ought to be getting much stronger support from the federal minister and from the Commonwealth government than we are at the moment.
I will meet with the Vice-Chancellor, as I said, at the earliest opportunity and will work through these issues. She is a strong fighter in her own right, and she is a dedicated fighter for Charles Darwin University. That is an asset in itself. However, we will work with her as hard as we can to find extra funding if nothing else is forthcoming from the Commonwealth government. I have said that publicly; the Vice-Chancellor and the council understand that. I look forward to that meeting with her because there clearly is a job in terms of the university and its teaching and learning. It is not something that is going to be turned around overnight, but steps do have to be taken.
I agree with the editorial only so far as excuses will not wash. There does have to be a job of work undertaken here. The Vice-Chancellor is not trying to do that; she is trying to put a context around the study and exactly what it means. However, all of the information is not yet in. The publication of that list is premature; there is a whole range of data still to come in against that survey.
Nonetheless, the Vice-Chancellor is not running from this; she is prepared to take it on. I look forward to the meeting with her to work out where and how we, as the government, can support that further analysis of teaching and learning within the university, try to understand what has to be done and facilitate that process as far as we can.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training)(by leave): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Mental Health Services
Mental Health Services
Ms LAWRIE (Family and Community Services): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I rise to reflect on the substantial progress made by this government to improve mental health services for Territorians, to acknowledge the job is far from complete, and to inform the Assembly of important new initiatives my department will implement over the coming year.
Mental health is a high priority in our five-year framework for Building Healthier Communities. Gaps in the mental health service system are being addressed. This government is undertaking broad-ranging reform of the mental health sector, and is backing that reform with substantial increases in funding. Although significant improvements have been made during this government’s first term, there is still more to do - service gaps remain, and further investment and effort are required to meet the needs of our community.
Tonight, I reaffirm this government’s commitment to continue our comprehensive upgrade of the mental health system, to implement new and improved services and, importantly, to accelerate the legislative reform that is essential to our goal of an improved mental health service for all Territorians.
Before I turn to the specific issues facing the Territory, I would like to make some comments on events that have received recent media attention. The media has brought into sharp focus the tragic death of a young Territory man with schizophrenia. Members will be aware that this death has been a subject of a coronial inquiry, and we expect shortly to receive the coroner’s findings in relation to this tragedy. Our service systems must learn from such incidents. Without waiting for the coroner’s findings, I have asked my department to take immediate action to address the issues raised during the inquiry to ensure that we are providing the best possible care, and that our legislative framework supports the reforms we need to make.
Since becoming Minister for Family and Community Services, I have met with mental health workers in both the government and non-government sector, in both Darwin and Alice Springs. I visited the Alice Springs inpatient unit in early August, and spent some hours last week viewing the facilities and talking with staff at the Top End Mental Health Inpatient Unit, more commonly known as Cowdy and Joan Ridley wards. Work to improve these units has been under way for sometime and extensive modifications to Cowdy ward have recently been completed. These renovations changed the layout of some areas and will reduce the risk of individuals leaving the ward without medical approval. No patients have left the Joan Ridley unit without medical approval. Further improvements will be made this financial year and, in addition, improvements to the Joan Ridley unit have also been included in this year’s minor new works budget.
An Inpatient Task Force has been established to address any staffing and clinical practice issues relating to the operation of the unit. The task force will have representation from senior medical and nursing staff, inpatient nursing staff and the Australian Nursing Federation.
The Chief Executive of my department will be meeting with the Commissioner for Police to facilitate ongoing collaboration between the two departments and to address the issues raised in the recent coronial. I have also asked the department to prioritise the drafting of amendments to the Mental Health and Related Services Act and the Adult Guardianship Act to better address the crucial balance between the care of individuals and the provision of information to family and carers.
When the coroner hands down his findings, I have directed my department to immediately report to me on any problems or gaps that are identified, with concrete strategies to address these concerns.
The issue of mental health will continue to feature prominently in public debate as the Senate Select Committee into Mental Health Services holds hearings around Australia over the next few months. This government will continue to implement our reforms, ensuring that we move forward with the community and our important partnerships to improve our mental health system. I will also ensure that we seize the momentum and opportunities that this process provides to focus and guide our reforms.
I would like to take a moment to highlight statistics regarding the prevalence of mental health problems internationally and in the Territory. I hope members will agree they underline the magnitude of the problem and reinforce the need to maintain a focus on improving mental wellbeing.
According to the World Health Organisation, mental disorders account for an estimated 11% of the disease burden of our population and make up five of the 10 leading causes of disability. In Australia, the prevalence of mental illness is high: approximately one in five or 18%, of adults will experience a mental illness in any given 12 month period. Of these, only 38% seek assistance. About one in seven children and adolescents will experience behavioural or emotional problems over a six month period. About one in every 100 people will develop schizophrenia, and up to two in every 100 will develop bipolar disorder.
To restate the key statistic: about 20 in every 100 people, one in five, will experience some form of mental health problem at some time in their lives. This high prevalence of mental health problems means that it is likely that people with a mental illness live in every community, on every street, and in every apartment block throughout our community.
Most Australians, whether directly or indirectly, as a carer or family member, will be affected by mental illness. The high prevalence of mental illness results in a substantial burden for the community. In Australia, mental illness is ranked third only behind heart disease and cancer in its contribution to the total burden of disease. Depression and anxiety account for over half of this burden. Research by our department found that mental health accounts for 14.5% of the total burden of disease and injury in the Territory, ranked second only to cardiovascular disease, which accounts for 14.9%. Intentional injury accounts for an additional 4.9%.
Although accurate prevalence rates for Aboriginal Territorians are not currently available, it is generally accepted that the incidence of mental health problems is higher in Aboriginal communities. Aboriginal people are over- represented in the mental health system in terms of the number of people receiving mental health community and inpatient services relative to their proportion of population.
Territory data collected from services since 2000 indicates: 38% of all people assisted by Community Mental Health Services are Aboriginal, 10% above the populated proportion of the 28%; and 42% of admissions to mental health inpatient facilities are Aboriginal, 14% above the population proportion.
People with serious mental health problems experience high rates of physical illness, substance misuse, homelessness and abuse, and have a shorter life expectancy that the general population. The potential implications of findings such as these for the health and wellbeing of Territorians and a provision of health and community services are substantial and require careful consideration.
Providing comprehensive mental health services in the face of growing demand is problematic worldwide, and is no less difficult or complex here in the Territory. We have the same issues of increasing demand and increasing costs; we have the same concerns regarding our ongoing ability to attract, recruit and retain specialist services.
However, we also have, I am pleased to say, an extremely dynamic work force in both the government and non-government sectors, which is rising to the challenge and is strongly committed to ongoing service improvement. This government’s commitment to improving mental health service delivery across the Territory was demonstrated initially by more than doubling the mental health budget from $13.5m in 2001-02 to $28.9m in 2005-06. Under this government, staff numbers have increased in the government and the non-government sectors, including our remote areas. This includes 24 new positions, and picking up the funding for eight positions that were previously funded by the Commonwealth government.
The Territory mental health service system has three distinct but inter-related components: specialist inpatient services, such as the Top End and Central Australian Inpatient Units; community-based services provided by our public health system; and support and rehabilitation services provided by non-government agencies. These services function in an integrated way working together to provide continuity of care between the hospital and the community while providing the support that is needed by a person with a mental health-related disability.
The priority over the last four years has been the urgent need to provide a greater range of services in the community, and it is to this end we have been investing in our non-government organisations. Since 2003-04, we have increased the proportion of money invested in the non-government sector from 5.5% to approximately 10%. This is forecast to increase to approximately 11.5% in 2006-07. Investment in our NGOs not only improves access to support and rehabilitation services in the community, an important end in itself, it has the effect of reducing pressure on our inpatient beds, something that I will outline in more detail later in this statement.
We have also targeted new funding to strengthen the capacity of specialist clinic services, including child and adolescent services, and improve access to assessment and treatment services for people living in rural and remote areas of the Territory. Child and adolescent services have been increased to include additional nursing, allied health and psychiatrist positions and the commencement of a visiting service to regional centres. Service coverage to rural and remote communities has been enhanced by establishing additional clinical and Aboriginal mental health worker positions and increasing the frequency of mental health service visits to rural and remote communities. Visiting psychiatrist services to remote communities have also been introduced.
Our first term also saw a focus on improving the safety and quality of mental health services, including the implementation of improved policies and procedures around clinical risk management and discharge care coordination. The Top End Mental Health Service achieved accreditation in February 2004 for the first time and is preparing for reassessment in 2006.
The Central Australian Mental Health Service completed a self-assessment and will undergo its first organisation-wide assessment this November. Staff are to be commended for their commitment to improving the safety and quality of the services they provide and the environment in which they work.
The quality of mental health service delivery is also being enhanced through the effort of the Consumer Outcomes Measurement Embedding Team, or COMET, initiative. COMET is an NT-wide initiative that forms part of a concerted national effort to routinely measure and improve outcomes for mental health consumers. While our first term investment in mental health resulted in significant improvements in the range and quality of services, we acknowledge that further reforms and expansion of services are required.
An additional $5.5m has been committed over the next three years to 2007-08. In 2001-02, expenditure on mental health in the Northern Territory was $13.5m. The budget estimate for 2005-06 is $28.8m. During our tenure, per capita expenditure on mental health services in the Northern Territory has increased from $89 in 2002-03 to $129 in 2004-05, and is expected to reach an estimated $144 in 2005-06.
In addition to the immediate responses to the recent coronial I have outlined tonight, my implementation plan for the next 12 months will focus on six key priorities:
- ∙ fully implementing individual care packages to provide intensive support to people in their own home, either as
an alternative to hospital or following discharge from hospital;
∙ establishing community-based 24 hour support services for people who cannot be intensively supported in their
own home;
∙ coordinating an across government response to suicide prevention;
∙ finalising amendments to the Mental Health and Related Services Act and amending the Adult Guardianship Act to
ensure it better meets the needs of people with a mental illness;
∙ developing more effective service options for young people, particularly those requiring acute specialist in-patient care;
and
- ∙ in partnership with the Department of Justice and with the Aged and Disability Program in my department,
significantly increasing clinical and rehabilitation services to prisoners with a mental illness, acquired brain injury
or intellectual disability.
In addition to these priorities, the implementation plan also includes a number of other initiatives to:
- ∙ strengthen the capacity for 24 hour mental health assistance across the Territory through a telephone triage
and support service staffed by mental health clinicians;
∙ establish additional clinical positions to service rural and remote areas, including child and adolescent
specialists;
∙ improve quality and clinical system coordination in the Top End Mental Health Service and Central Australian
Mental Health Services;
∙ support chronic disease management trials in five remote communities;
∙ expand the Top End Division of General Practice Aboriginal Mental Health Program in remote communities;
∙ progress work force development initiatives;
∙ develop an NT-wide framework for consumer and carer participation;
∙ increase support to primary Mental Health and Acute Care Services;
∙ provide Mental Health Services in rural and remote communities; and
∙ contribute funding to the existing Tiwi Mental Health Program and introduce this model in one other large
Aboriginal community.
Experience with the Tiwi Mental Health Program shows that by combining traditional Aboriginal and specialist mental health skills and using local networks, Mental Health Services have been demystified and made more accessible. There is wide agreement amongst stakeholders that an integrated solution is the most effective approach in indigenous communities.
I do not intend to detail all of these initiatives here tonight, but I would like to expand on three important initiatives in the implementation plan:
- ∙ expansion of community care options available to people with a mental illness;
- ∙ ongoing legislative reform; and
- ∙ preventing suicide and self-harm, and life promotion initiatives.
The first of these initiatives is aimed at broadening the range of community-based care options for clients of mental health services and supporting these clients outside of inpatient facilities.
Limited access to appropriate community care throughout the Northern Territory places substantial pressure on families and communities. Despite the best efforts of frontline staff, the inability of services to support a person outside of hospital at times leads to admission to acute inpatient facilities.
The Territory has 32 acute mental health beds - 26 in the Top End and six in Central Australia - which equates to 16 acute beds per 100 000 people compared with a national average of 19.9 beds per 100 000. The Territory is currently the only jurisdiction with no community-based beds with 24-hour support. The national average for such beds is 11.6 per 100 000 people. The Territory would have sufficient acute beds if only patients who needed acute care occupied these beds. This can only occur when there are appropriate supported accommodation options in the community.
I am pleased to inform the Assembly that $1.8m allocated in the 2005-06 Budget - $1.2m in capital and $600 000 for operating costs, increasing to $1.1m recurrent from 2006-07 - will establish new community-based residential services in Darwin and Alice Springs. These new services will create an additional 14 beds - eight in Darwin and six in Alice Springs - and provide 24-hour step-up or step-down support for those who temporarily cannot be cared for in their own homes. These services will complement the individual care package trials currently under way in Darwin and Alice Springs. It is anticipated that these services will assist in reducing demand for inpatient beds, providing an alternative to long hospital stays. They will also allow us to intervene earlier in an acute episode, or facilitate early discharge. The services will be of particular assistance to those from rural and remote communities.
The proposed model will feature two distinct components: a clinical component provided by existing mental health services, and a more intensive 24-hour support component provided by a non-government service provider. The proposed service will operate with a recovery focus. Research confirms that even people seriously affected by mental illness can and do recover to live productive lives in their community. However, they must be given every opportunity to do so, and require substantial understanding and support. These new residential services, with the associated individual care packages in Darwin and Alice Springs, expand the range of community care options for mental health service consumers and their families.
A further priority under the implementation plan is the need to reform Territory legislation, including amendments to the Mental Health and Related Services Act and the Adult Guardianship Act.
Extensive community consultation regarding proposed amendments to the acts occurred in 2004, and the department is currently finalising drafting instructions for Parliamentary Counsel. Once drafting is complete, I have directed the department to circulate the amendments to stakeholders for final comment prior to consideration by Cabinet and introduction to the Legislative Assembly.
The proposed amendments will improve the functioning of the legislation in a number of important areas, and will assist in clarifying: the roles, rights and responsibilities of guardians and carers; the application of the act in regional centres and remote areas of the Territory, including the use of Community Management Orders; police powers under the acts; and the capacity to facilitate cross-border agreements.
At times, it is necessary to involuntarily detain people in the secure environment of a hospital or closed ward such as the Joan Ridley unit for assessment and treatment. Among other things, it is the Mental Health Act that sets out the process and basis for making this decision. It strives to balance complex and often competing interests, people’s human rights, the need to provide appropriate treatment, a responsibility to provide care and protection, and a responsibility to safeguard both consumers and the community. It is a difficult balance and we must ensure we get it right.
The third initiative on which I would like to elaborate is suicide prevention. It is of great concern to government that statistics continue to indicate a rising trend in suicide rates for the NT, a rate that continues to be the highest in Australia. The most influential factor in rising suicide rates in the NT has been the increasing incidence of suicide amongst the Territory’s Aboriginal population. This rise has occurred alongside an increasing incidence of depression, self-harm, anxiety, violence and substance abuse.
Statistics diminish the impact and reality of a sudden and unexpected death. Behind each of the numbers is a person. They are our families, our friends, our neighbours and our work colleagues. Suicide is a complex issue related to a range of factors: mental health and substance abuse problems; family issues; unemployment; cultural identity; involvement in the criminal justice system; access to education; and poverty.
Just as there is a range of risk factors, there is a range of strategies that must be used to prevent suicide. They need to be whole-of-government and community approaches. They must support action at all levels and for all ages. They must focus on everything from activities that strengthen individual resilience and community capacity through to interventions for people at high risk.
In 2005-06, additional and ongoing funding of $250 000 will be allocated to enhance suicide prevention initiatives in the NT. A dedicated suicide prevention coordinator will be recruited to progress implementation of the NT’s Strategic Framework for Suicide Prevention. The framework, a first for the Territory, was launched in October 2003 and is based on a whole-of-government and community approach, supports action across all levels of government and takes into account the unique circumstances in the Territory. Work over the next 12 months will focus on joint planning of programs and policies across government departments and community organisations that focus on life promotion and suicide prevention.
I would like to conclude this statement by emphasising that while a strong service system equipped to respond to a rising prevalence of mental health problems is essential, we should not lose sight of the need to pay close attention to promoting wellbeing in our community and, wherever possible, to preventing mental illness. Mental health is not simply the absence of mental illness. A key element of any comprehensive mental health approach is emphasising the importance of emotional wellbeing.
In addition to the mental health promotion benefits that will flow from the increased funding for suicide prevention I spoke of earlier, there are a number of other innovative mental health promotion activities taking place over the coming months, which I would like to outline.
Children of parents with mental illness are a vulnerable group within our community who require our increased attention and support. Next week, workshops are being held in Darwin and Alice Springs for professionals working with parents who have a mental illness, and their children. The workshops are designed to introduce participants to some key national resources that have been developed and can be used when working with individuals with mental illness who are also parents. These workshops will be held in regional areas later in the year.
NT Carers has been funded this year to facilitate a series of Resilience Workshops for children of parents with mental illness in a caring role. Workshops will be held in Darwin, Alice Springs and Katherine over the next 12 months.
During National Mental Health Week, held annually in October, a series of activities and events will be held across the Territory to raise awareness of mental health issues. Last year, the newly formed NT Mental Health Coalition was funded to coordinate a series of activities and regional events to take place throughout the week. Planning for this year’s Mental Health Week, to be held from 10 to 15 October, is now well under way.
Mental Health Week provides an opportunity for us all to consider the circumstances of individuals with a mental illness and their families, and to participate in activities being held in our community which seek to demystify mental illness, de-stigmatise the mentally ill, and promote the mental health and emotional wellbeing of all Territorians. The week also provides an opportunity for all of us to take time to think about our own mental health. As community leaders, I urge you all to take the time to participate in Mental Health Week.
Finally, I pay tribute to my predecessors, the members for Nightcliff and Arafura, for their vision in identifying mental health as a priority, and to previous Cabinets for backing this vision with substantial new funding. I am privileged to have the important responsibility of continuing and building on these reforms in our second term of government.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Deputy Speaker, I compliment the minister for raising this issue and making some good remarks within her statement. There are some very clear and useful initiatives in the statement, and I look forward to following these initiatives closely to ensure that they are delivered.
I am not doing this as a back-handed way of criticising the minister, but I did write to her on 18 July seeking a briefing on Family and Community Services. To date it has not occurred. I think arrangements were made last week for the briefing to occur this Friday. Two days before it happens, we have a ministerial statement, so one has to respond almost blind, as it were.
I wish to advise the House that I used to work in a psychiatric hospital many years ago, back in the 1960s in fact. It was in Claremont in Western Australia. After my medical graduation and imposed graduate training, I did psychiatric training in South Australia and continued to provide psychiatric services in my practice until my retirement from medical practice quite a few years ago now.
I was a bit disappointed that I was not accorded a briefing before parliamentary sittings occurred. It would have prepared me much better to respond to such a global statement.
The minister reaffirmed her government’s commitment to mental health. I heard that from the previous minister and the minister before her. I am a little disappointed that with four years of Labor government, I do not see huge progress, but four years of Labor neglect in mental health. I will make some points to demonstrate where things have gone wrong. As recently as a week or two ago, there were reports in Northern Territory and national papers about mentally ill people not receiving the care they deserve.
In the 1960s and 1970s, mentally ill people were almost incarcerated in psychiatric hospitals, some of them in what are called lock-down facilities. They were managed within those hospital confines. Then there was a huge change in philosophy about how we deal with mentally ill people. Psychiatric hospitals were shut down all over the country and many of these people who were once institutionalised were left to fend for themselves.
As the years have progressed, many of these patients have passed away for many reasons, from natural causes to suicide, the commission of crimes and facing the wrath of police or threatening bodily harm to others and suffering the consequences of that.
New generations of mentally ill people have come through. They do not have many in-hospital type services they can access. They are out there in the public, seeking help where they can, managing the best they can and mostly with family support, but if they have no family, they are on their own.
Many of us as members of parliament have come across such people. We call them street people, we call them all sorts of names, people who come to our offices sometimes to seek assistance, sometimes we offer assistance, other times we lock the doors on them. I know that happens because I have seen it happen in several electorate offices. These are the people who need help. The first focus that we must have as a government is to provide good, effective, supportive outpatient services. Without those, these people are going to struggle forever.
Let me come to some of the comments made by the minister. She talked about wanting her department to address the issues about Cowdy and Joan Ridley wards at Royal Darwin Hospital. Obviously, these changes are not adequate because it has been commented upon by the people who work in the unit. This article in the NT News on 4 August, less than two weeks ago, says one mental patient a week is escaping from the ward. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure you have seen this article. It was written by Suellen Hinde, the health reporter. She said that more than one involuntary patient a week runs away from Darwin’s mental health ward, and that was presented at the coronial inquest. The constable who normally works in that ward said, and I quote from the article in the paper:
- Anyone could walk in or out of Cowdy Ward.
If we have people in there who need our care, who need sometimes to be under close supervision, we need to have a more secure system. The minister talked about renovations; the constable said the reception area was now 40 metres from the front door, and that would still make it difficult to see any patients escaping or absconding. Somewhere, something has gone wrong with the design of the renovations. The minister needs to have a closer look. She told us that she inspected the premises, but obviously she did not look at it from a user’s point of view, the users being the staff. The staff need to be asked: how do we improve the ward system so that your work can be made easier, so that you can provide adequate care for the patients?
As you know, our psychiatric services, from medical staff through to nursing staff and health workers, are very stretched. The numbers are inadequate. Previous ministers have spoken about generally wanting to recruit more, and it would be interesting to hear from the minister - she has not told us; it was not in this report - how well the staff recruitment has gone in the last four years of this government. We need to know how many people are in the system who will service the patients that we have.
If you look at Cowdy ward and the hospitals in Alice Springs and Darwin, we have overcrowding in our wards. I know there are patients who have to share rooms, and you do not put psychiatric patients in the same room for all sorts of reasons. There might be animosity between patients. One patient could be self-harming while the other patient is lying there. What does the other patient do? You may think the other patient should be seeking help for the patient who is self-harming, but the self-harming of itself could be traumatic for the other patient.
We need to start looking at how we are going to deal with overcrowding in our hospital wards. Maybe what you need is not only renovations, but to increase the number of rooms to accommodate the many mental patients that we have. We heard the minister say that Alice Springs has six beds. We have known that in Alice Springs, they have always been inadequate and not enough to service the number of people living there. It will be 12 months ago that we had a suicide in the ward in Alice Springs, commonly known as Ward 1. We try not to use that name because there is so much stigma attached to that ward.
You hear that there is inadequate staffing. My attention was drawn to the fact that the coroner, when he inquired into the suicide last year in Alice Springs, made a comment about the staff mix in Ward 1 not being adequate and, thus, was not able to support the mix of patients in Ward 1. That might have been one of the contributing factors towards the suicide of that person.
Isn’t it interesting to hear that approximately one in five, or 18%, of adults will experience mental illness in any given 12-month period? There are 25 members in this Chamber and, if you add the staff here, there are about 30 people in the Chamber. Within this Chamber, six of us are going down with mental illness. That is a scary statistic, isn’t it? One, two, three, four, five, six. There you go. Mr Deputy Speaker, I suggest to you that I have been here 11 years and I am still on my feet ...
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am certainly not indicating you, member for Greatorex.
Dr LIM: However, it is a scary statistic that one in five of us in this Chamber will suffer some sort of mental illness, as the minister calls it, in a 12-month period. The clock starts now.
Obviously, mental illness is a huge concern and people must be given the right tools to deal with it within themselves. In my professional life, I treated many schizophrenics, depressed people, people with neuroses and obsessive compulsive disorders. They need to be given tools to deal with that. With adequate support, they can live very productive lives in our community.
It is unfortunate, however, that we see such an over-representation of mental illness among Aboriginal people. The question has to be asked why. The minister did not quite elaborate on that. She identified that, yes, there are many Aboriginal people who suffer from mental illness, but she did not identify the reasons. It is important to not only know within the department, but people themselves need to know the causes. They need to know the triggers for them suffering a mental illness. By understanding the processes, people themselves can prevent it to a large degree. You cannot prevent schizophrenia; it happens. However, if you explain to a schizophrenic the trigger factors, that person can handle his or her life much better by trying to avoid those trigger factors.
Obviously, petrol sniffing has a major part to play in mental illness among the abusers. When I was on the substance abuse committee, we travelled to the Tiwi Islands. We were told about young kids smoking marijuana using bucket bongs. Imagine taking one whole cone of marijuana in one inhalation. Imagine the amount of toxins that you inhale in that one smoke. It is no wonder they suffer from paranoia and other psychiatric consequences. Then they want to try to stop the terror or the horror that is in their heads in any way they can.
The number of young people who suffer from mental illness is increasing. It is increasing so much more rapidly than in years past. These young people are not adequately cared for. There is no facility about which you can say: ‘This is for young adults or teenagers’. At the moment, if they have an acute problem that requires hospital or psychiatric ward support, they go into an adult facility. There have been many comments made nationally that this is not good enough.
Recently, there was a report that the Northern Territory has 87 young Territorians aged less than 19 years admitted to adult psychiatric wards, and half of them are under 18 years. That is a real worry. You have vulnerable young, mentally ill patients in an adult psychiatric ward in an environment where manipulation, coercion - call it what you like - will occur. You are exposing those young people to such an environment. That would lead to compounding of the problem if ever this young person, once discharged, has to return to hospital. Would they want to go back to such an environment? I suggest to you that they will not. Therein lies a problem: a person who needs help in a hospital, who is now so frightened by the experience that they will not go back. Where do you put them? Where do they get help? They desperately need the acute care and you cannot give it to them.
This government must look at what it can do to provide facilities for young people. I thought Aranda House in Alice Springs was a good facility. You could do it with that, and I am sorry to say that the resources to upgrade and refurbish Aranda House are very slow in coming. Until they do, we really have no place to go. Wildman River could be converted to help this as well. I am sure that if government had the political will, it can be done.
I was interested to hear the minister talk about more staff for the system. Previous ministers have talked about increasing Aboriginal health worker numbers and I will be very interested to hear from the minister how that program is going and what sort of numbers have been produced. It is good to have more indigenous or Aboriginal health workers because they can support patients from a very effective and sympathetic cultural background. A Chinese patient would come to me and if I appreciated their culture, I could explain their illness in an appropriate cultural context. Seeing someone who is like you makes it easier, and in terms of psychiatric illnesses, the fewer barriers there are, the better it will be.
I am not certain how the Aboriginal health worker program is going. I am led to understand that the numbers graduating from Batchelor College are not as great as they should be. I look forward to the minister giving me an update on that matter. The sooner we know what is going on, the better it will be.
Let us move from in-hospital care to outpatients, and talk about indigenous health workers in the bush supporting patients in the communities, but in urban areas. In Alice Springs, I have had so many complaints, which is why I know for certain that patients are not getting adequate support from outpatient services. People who need help ring mental health services and either they cannot get help or it takes a long time to get anyone to come and help.
Usually when a psychiatric patient rings for help, they need it there and then. It is no good saying: ‘Look, I haven’t got time to see you for another two or three weeks’. It is just not good enough. You have to do it there and then and if you do not, these people are going to be left high and dry. They will try to do the best they can. It is no wonder that they end up reaching out for drugs to try to block out whatever is in their minds.
The minister outlined many initiatives, and they are good. Will they be fulfilled? There are many motherhood-type aims. Four years of Labor and they have said these sorts of things previously, but they are yet to fulfil the desires they have articulated. I am going to pay particular attention to this portfolio, and I will be seeking frequent briefings to see how things are going.
The minister must listen to the staff, who are particularly concerned about how things are going in terms of their numbers and their skills set. As recently as 6 August this year there was the headline Nurses jab at bosses. The article said:
- Nurses have raised concerns about the capability of management of the Top End Mental Health Unit.
It is a real indictment. When staff working in an organisation say they do not trust a manager, they do not know that a manager can manage, there is real problem. How can they have any confidence at all that what they are going to be doing has any meaningful outcome at the end of the day? I quote from the article:
- A letter provided to the Northern Territory News describes management as having ‘temper tantrums’.
This is the manager of a psychiatric unit! They have to be able to deal with their own stresses a lot better if they want to help their patients. If management reacts with temper tantrums, where do we go? There are inconsistencies in rostering on Cowdy ward and graduate nurses who are not fully qualified in a sense of experience and time on the floor are required to perform the role of senior nurses on night shifts. That puts them at risk, if not the patients. Of course the patients are going to be at risk; you have a junior nurse in a senior role looking after mentally ill people. You do not know what the mentally ill people might do, and a junior nurse without the floor skills will definitely be at risk. I would hate to be in such a position.
When nurses want to take annual leave, they cannot. They have problems securing annual leave from the department. It is no wonder that the ANF has to step in and try to negotiate it through. It is just not good enough. The Health Department says everything is fine and they are going to sort things out, but we find that the department is looking at replacing the Director of Nursing in Mental Health, so there must be something quite seriously going on that requires such a drastic move.
I said that Alice Springs has insufficient beds. Six beds are simply not enough. The government must look seriously at some way of increasing that, or at least the step-down or step-up facility that the minister talked about. Let us see how you do this. You will have six step-down beds in Alice Springs. Where are you going to locate them? How are you going to staff and support the facility? How easy is it for mentally ill people in Alice Springs to have access to this facility? Without it, they are going to be out on the streets.
I draw your attention to the facility at the Red Shield Hostel run by the Salvation Army in Alice Springs. I recall the former Minister for Community Services, the member for Nightcliff, being in Alice Springs and opening the Red Shield Hostel, which was refurbished to accommodate 10 dual diagnosis people in a shelter for homeless men. The community around the Red Shield Hostel had a meeting with the Salvation Army to try to find out for themselves what the facility really meant, what sort of people would be living there, and what sort of impact there would be on the community. I was at the meeting and we were unable to get a clear answer from anyone, from the hostel itself or from the psychologists who were there on behalf of government.
The community in that area is concerned that while the dual diagnosis patients are in the Red Shield Hostel, they are under some degree of supervision, but the Red Shield Hostel takes no responsibility once these people are outside their premises. So if they walk outside the fence line, they are on their own and the community is on its own. There is a little, very nicely maintained community park where the kids love to go to play. At the moment, parents have concerns and are not prepared to let children go to the park to play because, on many occasions, people who live in the Red Shield Hostel will be in the park behaving inappropriately. I will not go into any more detail than that.
With regards to the review of the legislation, even the President of the Mental Health Review raised concerns in the year 2003-04 that the review has taken too long. It has been two years. We are now in 2005, and yet we have got nowhere with this, so, when is it going to happen?
The minister said that final drafting instructions are being prepared for Parliamentary Counsel. This is the problem with this government. It regularly says: ‘We are doing this, we want to do these motherhood things’, and they say it year in, year out. We get the political spin, the public relations exercise goes out and everyone will think the government is doing something. Then, 12 months later, nothing has happened. Another statement comes up and again the public relations wheel goes into motion and everyone feels warm and fuzzy because things are going to happen, and then 12 months later nothing happens.
It is time to stop that. It is time that we got on with getting the legislation together and making sure that the services that the government wants to provide for Territorians and those suffering from mental illness are provided.
Finally, and this is about substance abuse: if we are going to deal with indigenous children not becoming a mental health statistic, we really need to address substance abuse issues in the Northern Territory. If not, we are going to see more and more mental illness amongst indigenous young people. The corollary to mental illness is that there will be many more suicides.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome the statement. I look forward to some positive outcomes from this. I assure the minister I will be keeping a very close watch on it to ensure that the things she promised are delivered.
Mr HENDERSON (Business and Economic Development): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am speaking tonight to the statement on behalf of my colleague, the Health Minister who, as I advised the House today, has a minor ailment.
Mr HENDERSON (for and on behalf of the Minister for Health)(by leave):
- On 16 February 2004, I launched Building Healthier Communities: A framework for health and community services
2004-2009, in partnership with my colleague, the former Minister for Family and Community Services.
The framework provides our government’s vision for health and community services in the Territory and aims to
ensure that Territorians have a responsive health and community services system that is both effective and accountable.
Improving mental health is an important part of the vision. It is often said that there is no health without mental health,
and, as the Minister for Health, I agree with this view. There is increasing evidence that the psychological component
of health and its influence on physical wellbeing is critical to achieving good health outcomes.
The Building Healthier Communities framework, supported by the substantial additional health and community funding
this government has provided, demonstrates our serious commitment to improving mental health services for all Territorians.
The minister has advised that, as government, we acknowledge that there is still work to be done, and she has pledged
her personal commitment to continue the process of change to deliver a better mental health service for Territorians.
The minister has also informed the House that there is a national inquiry currently under way into mental health service
systems across Australia. This government welcomes the inquiry, for it can only lead to an improvement in services,
which will benefit the community and, most importantly, those individuals experiencing mental illness, and their families.
As I have stated, mental health is a key priority for the government. When we came to office, we inherited an ailing mental
health system that had been neglected and underfunded for years. Additional funding of $15.4m has been allocated since
then and, as my colleague said, the process of reform and service expansion in both government and non-government
sectors is now well under way. I take this opportunity to reflect on the progress made to date, and to acknowledge the
commitment of the previous bearers of this portfolio.
The priority over the last three years has been to urgently commence the task of developing a greater range of service options
in the community for people who have a severe and persistent mental illness, those at risk of experiencing or who are recovering
from an acute episode. In order to achieve this goal, new funding was targeted to: strengthen the capacity of specialist clinical
services, including specialist child and adolescent services; improve access to non-government support and rehabilitation
services; and improve access to specialist assessment and treatment services for people living in rural and remote areas of
the Territory.
As the minister advised, one in seven children and adolescents in Australia will experience behavioural or emotional problems
over a six-month period. Given the high proportion of the young people in the Territory, this is a group that requires increased
attention and support. Experiences in childhood lay down the foundation for mental health later in life. There is substantial
evidence to suggest interventions at this time can be effective in either preventing or reducing the impact of mental disorders
in later life.
Adolescence, in particular, is a critical developmental period when vulnerability to mental disorders is heightened. Mental health
problems can have a significant impact on a young person’s development in relation to self-esteem, family and social
relationships, education and career prospects. These impacts can have a lifelong social, financial and health cost. Ensuring
services meet the needs of young people confronted with mental health problems is another key focus area of Building
Healthier Communities.
The task of improving child and adolescent services has commenced under this government. We have increased resources to
this area, including funding to establish additional nursing, allied health and psychiatrist positions. We have also commenced
visiting services to regional centres. The challenge ahead is to consolidate and build upon the progress to date. I have every
confidence in the minister’s determination and commitment to oversee the ongoing reform process and to accelerate progress.
There have also been a number of other service system improvements over the last three years I would like to mention.
Acute assessment and after-hours services have been expanded by creating consultation liaison nurse positions in Royal
Darwin and Alice Springs Hospitals, and redeveloping and expanding the after-hours service in Darwin in order provide
an improved response of the emergency department to the general community. The safety and quality of mental health
services have also been improved. Clinical risk management, critical incident review and discharge care coordination
processes have been developed.
At the beginning of this statement, I made the comment that there is no health without mental health, and I would like to further
expand on this point. It has been widely acknowledged that physical and mental health are very much intertwined. Physical
conditions often feature a mental health component; likewise, mental illness can often manifest in physical symptoms.
As the Minister for Family and Community Services has stated, research undertaken in recent years indicates a clear relationship
between the physiological and psychological aspects of good health. As I recall, the national theme for Mental Health Week in
2004 focused on links between physical and mental health. Many people with chronic physical diseases such as diabetes and
renal disease experience emotional and psychological problems that are often not detected or treated. Likewise, people with
serious mental illness frequently have co-existing physical health problems that are not adequately addressed by either mental
health or primary care services. Additionally, people with mental illness often adopt unhealthy coping behaviours, such as
smoking, overeating or using alcohol or other drugs, which further contribute to poor physical health.
Physical illness is a common cause of relapse of chronic mental illness. In November 2000, a self-reporting survey undertaken
in the Territory, South Australia and Western Australia to assess health and wellbeing reported that a number of chronic diseases
such as respiratory disease, high cholesterol and hypertension had a strong association with mental health conditions. There
is accumulating evidence of a significant association between coronary heart disease, chronic respiratory problems, diabetes,
high blood cholesterol and mental health conditions.
As minister for Health, I recognise the need to address these issues in an integrated way. One of the ways we are doing this is to
provide a primary health care service in Darwin located at the Tamarind Centre to address the physical and mental health needs
of consumers and link them with GPs in the community. This model of co-location enables GPs to collaborate more effectively
with mental health staff and facilitates improved integration with other sectors of Health and Community Services, including
Alcohol and Other Drugs and the Communicable Diseases Services.
An area of some concern for anyone involved in the health care sector is the provision of services to our rural and remote regions.
As we are all aware, the Territory has a range of unique characteristics that can make service provision challenging. We have a
particular social and demographic composition, a small population dispersed over a large land mass, vast cultural diversity, and
a climate and infrastructure that make the provision of the full spectrum of mental health services, particularly in rural and
remote communities, a difficult task.
One of the strategies has been to increase funding for services to these areas. Under this government, mental health service
coverage to rural and remote communities has been enhanced by: additional clinical and Aboriginal mental health worker
positions, and an increased frequency of specialist mental health service visits; and visiting psychiatric services to remote
communities to support the locally based primary health care services and increase the capacity of local providers to
manage mental health consumers closer to their communities.
As the Minister for Family and Community Services indicated, service activity data suggests that the incidence of mental health
problems is high in Aboriginal communities and that Aboriginal people are over-represented in our mental health system.
The appropriate management of chronic or relapsing mental disorders is particularly challenging in these populations, not only as
a result of remoteness and lack of access to services, but also due to a lack of reliable and culturally valid tools for assessment
and measuring clinical outcomes.
Workshops have recently been held in Darwin and Alice Springs to train clinicians and other service providers in the use of
Westerman Aboriginal Symptom checklist. Another initiative currently under way to explore some of these issues is the
Australian Integrated Mental Health Initiative, which is referred to as AIMHI. This is an exciting five-year research project being
undertaken nationally for consumers suffering from chronic mental illness. AIMHI has sites in New South Wales, Victoria,
Queensland and the Territory. Its Territory site, the remote Top End, is one of the two indigenous sites in Australia.
AIMHI NT is targeting remote Top End people with a chronic mental illness and trying to improve community-based interventions
and the links between remote community services and urban services. The project is pursuing innovative strategies for mental
health promotion in remote communities, which include the development of culturally appropriate resources, links with other
program areas such as Alcohol and Other Drugs, and initiatives to improve mental health literacy in remote communities.
AIMHI has developed working parties in service delivery, health promotion, data collection and outcome measures. Relapse
prevention trials have commenced in the Tiwi Islands and Groote Eylandt. Extensive consultations have also taken place with
Numbulwar and Yirrkala community members, and initial discussions have taken place with a number of other Top End health
centres and all regional mental health services. The project has also developed a generic Mental Health Care Plan training
package, incorporating these resources for remote service providers.
The Health Promotion Working Party has developed flip charts, resource guides for remote clinics, education for service providers
and has successfully linked with the Marvin trial throughout the development of the unique AIMHI characters.
The continued support of the Tiwi Mental Health program referred to by my colleague also indicates government’s recognition of
the fundamental importance in pursuing an holistic service model that responds to a range of community problems including
mental illness, substance misuse and family problems.
As Minister for Justice, I am also aware that there has been considerable research into the links between offending and mental
illness. Some of this offending is preventable if appropriate and timely treatment and support services are available.
Forensic mental health is a specialist area within the mental health field, which addresses the special needs of mentally
disordered offenders, the justice sector and the community whilst providing effective assessment, treatment and management
of forensic patients in appropriately secure settings. A review of forensic mental health services in the Territory is currently under
way, which will provide advice and recommendations for further improvements to existing services.
There has been a long established need for additional services and facilities to provide a secure rehabilitation focus to mentally
disordered individuals in the criminal justice system in the Territory, and this is acknowledged. However, in a jurisdiction such as
ours, the capacity to invest in expensive, purpose-built facilities and costly services for a small number of individuals is difficult.
While such a facility is on the government agenda in future years, we have signalled our intention in this year’s budget to provide
a more immediate response to the needs of prisoners with mental illness or impairment.
The 2005-06 Budget includes funding to increase existing services to both Darwin and Alice Springs prisons. An additional nine
positions will be progressively created across the mental health and disability services program over the next three years. This
represents an investment of $350 000 in 2005-06, increasing to $500 000 in 2006-07 and $700 000 in 2007-08. Staff will be
comprised of mental health nursing, allied health, disability support and Aboriginal mental health and support worker disciplines.
Dialogue has commenced between the Departments of Justice and Health and Community Services regarding the development
of a memorandum of understanding to better coordinate service provision to offenders with a mental illness or mental impairment
and ensure the services provided by mental health, disability services and prison-based rehabilitation programs are complementary
and appropriately targeted to meet the needs of the prison population.
The two departments working more closely together on the issue will present opportunities for joint ongoing planning and closer
working relationships that will inevitably enhance the quality of clinical services to the prison population. Resources allocated
to the Department of Justice following the review of the adult Correctional System will also contribute to these improvements.
The Minister for Family and Community Services has spoken at some length about the tragic impact of suicide in our community.
In some of our regional and remote areas, suicide or the threat of suicide is causing significant fear and stress in the whole
community. The complexity of this issue means there is no single route to a reduction in our suicide rate, and no single approach
to prevention. Effective suicide prevention needs to combine a range of strategies and approaches that include targeting the
whole population and specific groups as well as individuals at risk.
Mr Deputy Speaker, you will recall launching the Northern Territory Strategic Framework for Suicide Prevention in 2003. The framework
is based on a whole-of-government and community approach that supports action across all levels of government and takes into
account the unique circumstances of the Territory.
The framework was developed by a Suicide Prevention Interdepartmental Committee, which included representation from: Health
and Community Services; Employment, Education and Training; the Office of Youth Affairs; Community Development; Sport
and Recreation; Justice; Police, Fire and Emergency Services; and the Australian government Department of Health and Ageing.
As the minister advised the House, increased investment in suicide prevention will assist in better coordinating activity and
overseeing further implementation of the framework.
The link between substance abuse and suicide, particularly within our indigenous communities, has been another focus area for
this government. Issues of particular concern are the impacts of excessive alcohol consumption, the effects of cannabis use and
petrol sniffing. The NT Mental Health and Substance Misuse Project, which includes key government and non-government
stakeholders, has been working to improve services for those people who have both a substance misuse and mental health problem.
The project is working to identify which services are available for people with both mental health and substance misuse problems,
and provide advice on areas of need and best practice approaches that are sustainable in urban and remote Aboriginal communities.
The project has developed working agreements between mental health and Alcohol and Other Drugs services, implemented
assessment screening tools, and undertaken joint training initiatives.
Additionally, the department’s Alcohol and Other Drugs Program is currently implementing initiatives to support the Volatile
Substance Abuse Prevention Act, including assessment, treatment, rehabilitation and court diversion programs.
I would like to make one more point before closing: the government is fully committed to mental health reform. It is presiding
over significant change in the way services are provided to people with mental illness, their family members and our community.
This is a substantial undertaking, one we will see through.
Ultimately, we are seeking to engage all members of our community to improve the mental health of Territorians, and to understand
and support the efforts of those services and individuals dedicated to the task.
Reducing the stigma associated with mental illness is also an important responsibility for us all, individually and collectively. As leaders
in our respective electorates, it is incumbent upon us to provide leadership in breaking down the barriers and increasing
community understanding of mental illness.
As Police minister, I would like to talk about the work that our police are doing in trying to break up the supply chains, particularly of cannabis, into remote communities across the Northern Territory. I agree with the member for Greatorex that the links between excessive cannabis use and mental health problems, particularly in areas of depression and paranoia, is well proven.
I am very pleased that, with the increased funding to our police force, the additional 200 we are recruiting to the force, has allowed the police to establish a Remote Drug Desk. This drug desk is staffed by detectives and other people involved in the intelligence gathering aspects of the police force. They work hand in hand with police officers stationed in remote parts of the Northern Territory and they are achieving some very successful outcomes.
Another commitment and initiative late last year was to recruit for the first time two dedicated drug sniffer dogs to the NT police force, and they are really starting to get some great results uncovering significant quantities of cannabis en route to remote communities in terms of searching barges, aircraft and motor vehicles. Part of the government’s whole-of-government approach is to try and reduce the supply of drugs into those remote communities.
There is nothing more distressing, as we get around Community Cabinet in the Northern Territory and for our members of parliament who represent those remote communities, to sit down and talk to parents, particularly the women, in those communities who see the devastation caused by increased cannabis use. The effects of petrol sniffing and alcohol are also well known. But the scourge of cannabis is increasing in those communities, and the police have a very challenging job in front of them to do everything they can at a policing or law enforcement level to interrupt the supply of drugs into those communities.
I would like to put on record tonight, as Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services, my commitment to do everything I can to work with our police force to up the effort in this area because, at the end of the day, the people who profit from the sale of these drugs need to be brought to justice. These drugs can lead to depression and suicide. These people need to be held to account for their despicable trade. As Police minister, I am committed to that task.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the honourable minister on her statement.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to thank the minister for her statement on mental health services reform, outlining the current initiatives to improve an area of health services that operates out of sight and out of most people’s minds.
Just last week, one of my constituents reminded me of the wise words of Nelson Mandela, when he observed that you can judge the moral character of a nation by how it treats its prisoners. I believe that the same can be said for how a community treats its members who have a mental illness.
Honourable members do not need to be reminded of the horrific images from the past of the inhumane practices inflicted on sufferers of mental illness, practices that were little short of barbaric. Fortunately, we live in a more enlightened time where these practices are firmly a part of the past. Unfortunately, the stigma attached to mental illness persists. This stigma continues to plague consumers of mental health services as they bravely struggle to reform their lives in their own way, making their own choices and achieving results that not only improve their own lifestyle, but improve the quality of the community’s lifestyle as a whole.
As elected members of this Assembly, we must challenge this stigma at every opportunity. We should support services that place the needs and choices of the individual at the centre of any program. We should support providing services that recognise the need for acute residential services when necessary, and which also allow for treatment and therapy in the community, no matter where in the Northern Territory the individual lives.
This government is listening to the needs and aspirations of consumers of mental health services to ensure that the services continue to meet the needs of the consumer while they develop a sense of value and purpose in life.
Honourable members, it is for these reasons that I wholeheartedly endorse the leadership that the Martin government continues to take in this area of the health sector. In particular, I draw honourable members’ attention to the increased funding to the non-government service sector, particularly the increased funding to and recognition of consumer and carer groups.
On taking up occupancy of my electorate office in Palmerston shopping centre, one of the first community groups that I discovered using the community meeting room was the local group of GROW. This group meets weekly, and regularly attracts up to 15 people who live in the city of Palmerston and surrounding rural areas. This non-denominational group allows people with varying degrees of mental illness to meet on a regular basis and share common experiences in a friendly and non-judgmental environment.
The GROW program allows participants to develop new coping techniques at their own pace, allowing them to rebuild and take control of their own lives. I congratulate GROW for establishing a support group in Katherine and extending the important service they provide.
GROW is just one of many consumer and carer organisations that deals with mental illness. These organisations have a valuable role to play in dispelling the stigma attached to mental illness within our community by demonstrating that consumers of mental health services are not incapable of participating in society but, in fact, make a positive contribution. More importantly, the people who run GROW are consumers of mental health services themselves. It is their own first-hand knowledge that ensures that services actually meet the needs of the consumers of mental health services.
This is a model that can work effectively in the Northern Territory, particularly where it is difficult to provide services across the vast distances between remote and urban communities. The Martin Labor government acknowledges this. It is not only increasing funding to these non-government organisations, but also ensuring they have a direct say in the continuing reform of mental health services.
No discussion of mental health services can overlook the continuing issue of youth suicide within our community, particularly within the indigenous community. We must arrest this waste of potential. Some of us here may have experienced someone they know taking their own life. It is a terrible thing for a person to think that there is no better alternative.
There seems to me a further dimension to the sadness we feel when the person was in the flower of their youth. It is imperative that government provide support and assistance to those trying to discover or rediscover their self worth. We must support and assist those trying to manage or recover from their mental ill health. We must, in short, look after our own.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the statement on mental health services reform by the Minister for Family and Community Services.
As we all know, good mental health is vital to our wellbeing. It enables us to think, learn and interact in harmony with others and our environment, but for increasing numbers of people in the Northern Territory and Australia who experience poor mental health, maintaining the harmony in their lives is impossible. The carers and family members also suffer serious disruption to the harmony of their lives, which is why I am very pleased to speak on the progress of the Northern Territory government’s commitment to mental health reform in Central Australia.
Over the last four years, the commitment of additional funds by this government has enabled the recruitment of appropriately qualified staff at the Central Australian Mental Health Service. This funding has resulted in an increase in clinical staff and Aboriginal mental health workers. The rise in numbers of permanent staff has been a concomitant decline in the use of contract and agency staff, which are very positive for clients and carers who can enjoy continuity of the service and staff availability.
A further improvement has occurred with the creation of a psychiatric liaison position at Alice Springs Hospital, which provides support to the Emergency Department and hospital wards. Discharge planning has also improved with the implementation of a Wellness and Recovery plan. This service, collaboratively developed between Central Australian Mental Health Service and the Mental Health Association of Central Australia, is expected to commence this month and will provide consumers with intensive support in their own home as an alternative to hospital admission or following discharge from hospital.
To support this initiative, funding for six 24-hour staff residential beds in Alice Springs will provide intensive support for those unable to be cared for in their own home and consumers from rural and remote areas. Consumers and carers have consistently argued for improvements and an expansion of the mental health services available in Central Australia, and these improvements are a significant step towards meeting those needs.
I also want to stress the need for government suicide prevention initiatives. In our indigenous communities, where Sorry Business occurs daily, the loss of our young people to suicide is devastating and traumatic. As the minister said in her statement, the issue of suicide is complex in our indigenous communities. This complexity is compounded by the effects of historical and social dislocation, poverty, chronic disease and a lack of infrastructure and services arising from decades of development neglect. Addressing the issue of suicide requires a whole-of-government approach.
I look forward to seeing the strategic framework for suicide prevention developed and address this chronic issue. I will monitor our progress closely.
Ms LAWRIE (Family and Community Services): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank honourable members for their contribution to the statement.
In response to the member for Greatorex, I apologise for the efforts of my staff to try to schedule a briefing at a time convenient to you. However, I must point out that the letter that you wrote on 18 July was not actually received in my office until 27 July and as soon as I received it, I issued a …
Dr Lim: I e-mailed you the same day I wrote it.
Ms LAWRIE: We have a Registry process here.
Dr Lim: Blame the government then.
Ms LAWRIE: We have a Registry process here.
Dr Lim: Everyone else did.
Ms LAWRIE: Might I say that as soon as I received it, I did ask for that briefing to be arranged quite promptly.
Turning to the issues that you raised, as I outlined in my statement, the department has been proactive in implementing a plan to reduce the number of patients leaving the Cowdy ward without medical approval.
A review of safety and security in the Top End Mental Health Service Inpatient Unit was undertaken in January of 2004. The review did find that there were too many entry and exit points to the ward, and recommended that all but one of these points be sealed. It further recommended modifications to create a new reception area to increase observation at the remaining single entry-exit point. This work has been completed in consultation with staff both at the Cowdy ward and the other areas of the hospital.
In addition, two high dependency beds were moved from Cowdy ward to the Joan Ridley unit, decreasing the number of open beds from 18 to 16 and increasing the number of locked beds from eight to 10.
Another issue raised by the member for Greatorex requires clarification: yes, comment was made on the staffing mix at the Alice Springs Mental Health facility on the night that the death occurred. The coroner recognised that the staff mix was not ideal on that night due to staff illness. Importantly, he also found that this did not contribute to the tragedy that occurred. I must also point out there have been significant modifications in the Alice Springs unit to improve the safety and security of the physical environment.
Member for Greatorex, you have a new found but welcome interest in areas of the mental health system. Under the previous government, there were three child and adolescent mental health positions in the Top End and one in Central Australia. So far, we have increased this staffing to include two child psychiatrists, one in the Top End and one NT-wide, and three child and adolescent clinicians, two in the Top End and one in Central Australia. This year, we will increase these numbers even further, with another three positions across the NT to provide services to rural and remote areas.
Let me also place on the record some facts about Aboriginal mental health workers. Prior to this government, five Aboriginal mental health workers were employed in the Territory health system with another four workers funded by the Australian government. We have increased that number to 13 in the public system, as well as picking up funding for the four Commonwealth positions. In effect, we have funded nine additional Aboriginal mental health positions over our first term of government.
This year, we will also provide funding to the Top End Division of General Practice program so that it can expand its Aboriginal mental health worker program, and we will be providing funding to the Tiwi Islands service so that it, too, can employ additional Aboriginal mental health workers.
The member for Greatorex spoke about the contribution of volatile substance abuse or petrol sniffing to mental disorders or psychosis. This issue has long been recognised by this government and that is why we introduced the Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Act. It is why this government has tended to establish treatment and rehabilitation services in Alice Springs and Darwin and is funding outstations to carry out this work. We recognise that treatment and support are needed. That is why this government, as opposed to members opposite, are not going to send these young people to gaol.
The member for Brennan spoke about the importance of community organisations, and particularly GROW, in providing support for those members of our community who live with a mental illness, and their carers and family. As I outlined in my statement, the community sector is key to the government’s reform agenda, with unprecedented and increasing levels of financial support flowing to these organisations. Support services in the non-government sector have increased significantly from $827 000 in 2002-03 to an anticipated $2.354m in 2005-06.
I would like to expand on the comments by the member for Brennan and take time to outline and acknowledge more of the significant work undertaken by the non-government sector. In 2004, my predecessor, the member for Arafura, recognised the Northern Territory Mental Health Coalition as the mental health peak body of the Northern Territory. The group has representatives from the key mental health organisations including GROW, Top End Mental Health Consumers’ Organisation, NTCOSS, Team Health, Northern Territory Association of Relatives and Friends of the Mentally Ill, known as NTARFMI, and in early 2005, this group was formally granted a seat on the Mental Health Council of Australia. This means that we now have a spokesperson in this national body reporting on the interests and concerns of Territory consumers and mental health organisations.
In 2004, this government provided $40 000 to the coalition, which we have now increased to $85 000 each year for coordination and promotion activities. It is the first time this group has received such support from a Territory government and is a clear demonstration of our commitment to mental health issues and to the sector.
Since I became minister, I have met with representatives of the Mental Health Coalition, as well as members of Team Health and the Mental Health Association of Central Australia. Team Health, the Top End Association for Mental Health, is a key mental health NGO in Darwin. It runs a number of programs funded under our Mental Health Program, including rehabilitation, case management, long-term supported accommodation and outreach support services. It is also the organisation that successfully tendered for our new individual community care packages, which are expected to commence this week.
As I outlined briefly in my statement, the aim of this service is to intensively support people in their own homes or other suitable accommodation. Clients of the service may be people experiencing a temporary worsening of their mental illness, but who do not require treatment in hospital, or those who have been in hospital and need some extra support when they go home.
The Mental Health Association of Central Australia has also received funding to provide individual community care packages, which they prefer to call the Prevention and Recovery Service. They have a strong client focus, with client representation on their board, as well as strong connections to the community. Indeed, various businesses from Alice Springs assisted this organisation to furnish some of their supported accommodation facilities. The work this group is doing is indeed extremely impressive, and I look forward to going back and spending more time with them on one of my future trips to Alice Springs. I thank them for the information they provided me when I visited them. They were an inspirational group of workers committed to assisting people with a mental illness into wellbeing.
The member for Macdonnell touched on the difficult and complex issue of suicide and suicide prevention, particularly in remote indigenous communities. Our government’s Strategic Framework for Suicide Prevention, a first for the Territory, will work to address the many issues that contribute to the high rates of suicide and self-harm in these communities. As I outlined in my statement, a dedicated Suicide Prevention Coordinator will be recruited to progress implementation of the framework.
I thank the member for Wanguri, the minister representing the Minister for Health, for the comments that he provided on behalf of the Minister for Health. They were insightful, and it is very useful for my carriage of the portfolio of Family and Community Services to have a minister with carriage of Health who shares a passion in caring for people who have a mental illness and putting in place the resources required to promote mental and emotional wellbeing in our community. He has a vast knowledge when it comes to services, requirements and needs in Central Australia, so it is very good to work with him.
I thank all the members who contributed to the debate today. I thank the member for Greatorex, the shadow minister for Family and Community Services, for his contribution, his keenness and awareness in joining with the government in promoting mental wellbeing, and for encouraging us to continue to implement the many reforms we have introduced.
I thank the member for Brennan for his insightful care and concern, and the comments he has made in relation to this statement. He is quite right: non-government organisations provide so much support in our society. I commit to continuing the good work of the member for Arafura in ensuring that we support the Mental Health Coalition, which is the umbrella for non-government organisations, and I promise to go out and visit such places as GROW and Pete’s Place. I am looking forward to those visits.
I thank the member for Macdonnell. I know she has an abiding depth of knowledge in how remote communities work, and the importance of understanding what services and support the remote communities need to improve the wellbeing of their communities.
I hope to make visits to her communities with her over the time that I have carriage of this portfolio because I have much to learn in how we can improve these remote services. However, I am very aware that my predecessor has put in place the strongest possible foundation on which to deliver important mental health services right throughout the Northern Territory. No longer will they be urban-centric. They are already regional and remote in their nature.
Mental health is clearly an issue that affects us all. It is not confined to any one group of people. It can affect people of all ages and all cultures. The costs of mental health issues to the community - not only the financial cost, but the strain these issues can place on individuals and families - are significant. The work done in reforms and the resources allocated to implement them are about saving lives and improving the lives of those suffering a mental illness, their families and their carers.
I thank all the department staff. I know I have a very willing and able team of professionals who working in mental health services for the Northern Territory. I look forward to continuing to work with them. I thank the staff on the ground who have accommodated me with my visits to the inpatient units. They have been very insightful and have helped me to understand where our priorities lie in increasing the step-down and step-up community care packages that we are providing in the community through tenders. I look forward to a very close, positive working partnership with non-government organisations that are supporting and delivering services to people with a mental illness.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
ADJOURNMENT
Ms LAWRIE (Family and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
This evening, I acknowledge a fantastic event in the Karama community on Sunday past, 14 August. Karama Neighbourhood Watch held their 3rd Annual Karama Fun Day. It was held again at Karama Primary School. This year, we had about 350 people come through the school.
The event included a fantastic performance by Chantal the Fairy. I have never heard such a crowd of kids screaming with sheer delight at the entertainment. Chantal has many skills and is enormously popular with the children of neighbourhood. She did some of the most spectacular face painting I have ever seen. She has recently been to the United States and honed her skills even further, and her face painting is nothing short of spectacular. We also had jumping castles and a play van which the kids used all day long; they were free and the kids loved them.
Neighbourhood Watch had their stall and we had at least six people sign up as new Neighbourhood Watch members, which is fantastic. We ran the drink stall on behalf of the Karama Primary School, providing them with the money collected on the day as a donation to the school. There was a free barbecue hosted by the Karama Neighbourhood Watch volunteers on the day.
I thank the Darwin City Council for the presence of Alderman Alan Mitchell and Alderman Dorothy Fox who sat throughout the day, explaining what council does.
The Beat the Heat police car came along. The children were very excited about checking out the Holden Commodore SS on show. I promised to have a ride in a drag with the Beat the Heat car. I will be in the passenger seat, though, because I can assure you I am not astute at drag racing.
The events on the day included tug-of-war and sack races and a round robin softball competition organised by one of our local mothers and a softball experts, Kerry Wetherall.
We had the mounted police show up towards the end of the day, and they were very popular.
There was a new performance this year by the Dog Obedience Club. It was really interesting to see just how capable people are at controlling their dogs and getting the dogs to do all sorts of tricks and jumps and go through hoops and loops. Everyone loved it, and we all went home inspired to get our dogs to behave much better. There really was a community benefit there.
There was another fantastic performance by the Manunda Terrace Rope Ragers. We had a great performance from Karama Primary School children singing, and Corrugated Iron Youth dancers performed their own choreographed work.
The round robin was a good competition between local families. Mums, dads and kids all got into teams together. The Ah Hills, a combination of the Ah Sams and the Hills, took out the competition. They enjoyed the fact that I presented them with a Fun Day perpetual trophy. It is a very kitsch-looking trophy, quite in keeping with the fun aspect of the day.
I thank, in particular, the Karama Neighbourhood Watch Area Coordinator, Kerrie Behm. She has been a fantastic supporter of Karama, and really gets stuck into her commitment to Neighbourhood Watch and crime prevention. I thank members of the organising committee, Sue Hoddindott, Andy Burnett, Stephen Farrawell, and Acting Sergeant Geoff Pickering.
My electorate officer, Jessica Paolucci, has been working behind the scenes for months pulling this day together. She was tireless in her efforts, and I thank her for both her organisation and being there on the day. The board members, the ever-faithful Paul Wyatt - I think he is up to his 19000th sausage or some ridiculous figure that has cooked on behalf of the community - and Ken Mildred, the Neighbourhood Watch Chair, who was running around taking photos having a fantastic time.
Other Neighbourhood Watch volunteers who are very good and got stuck in on the day were Marion Hancock who had to put up with all the kids on the jumping castle and the play van, and I promised her that she will not have to do that duty next year, and Helene and Joe Clarke, Leigh Kariko, Kevin and Rita Cluley and Sue Pattislemo..
We had great sponsorship and donations from: Coles Karama, which provided all the food at no cost for the Fun Day; Peter La Pira, the owner of Karama Shopping Centre from Joondana Investments, covered the costs for the drinks for the day to the tune of about $600; Schuberts Catering provided the barbecue, eskies and shade at no cost; and Crocodylus Park donated two vouchers.
It was a thoroughly enjoyable day. As I said, about 350 people from the Karama community came and celebrated our safe, wonderful community together. I thank all those volunteers who went to such a huge effort for another popular Karama Fun Day.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, tonight I want to raise a matter that is fairly serious and needs to be dealt with urgently.
I hope the relevant minister listens to this and might take it on board. It relates to the 8CCC FM radio station in Alice Springs. Today, I received a letter that was delivered to my office and sent up to me regarding what is going to happen to the 8CCC FM radio station in Alice Springs.
I want to read some paragraphs from this letter so that my information is accurate:
- This letter is to update you as to the current status of the community broadcast licence for Alice Springs
(and Tennant Creek) as applied for by 8CCC Community Radio Inc on 20 October 2004.
8CCC applied for the licence with the support of the Charles Darwin University.
Let me go back and explain. About 20 plus years ago when it was the Alice Springs College of TAFE and I was Chair, we obtained a community radio licence to run 8CCC FM, and the licence was held by the Alice Springs College of TAFE on behalf of the community. We provided premises and broadcasting facilities for the community group to run the radio station. The radio station has evolved over these last 20 plus years to become part of Territory network whereby TOP-FM broadcasts are relayed in Alice Springs and some programs are also passed up the track.
Management has always been auspiced by the Alice Springs College of TAFE. When the Alice Springs College of TAFE became Centralian College, the licence was then held by the corporate body, but within Centralian College. When Centralian College was amalgamated with the Northern Territory University to form Charles Darwin University, the Charles Darwin University took over responsibility of the community radio station and provided the space and broadcasting facilities for 8CCC FM radio station.
Coming back to the letter:
- 8CCC applied for the licence with the support of the Charles Darwin University …
That is to say, infrastructure and administrative support would continue much along the same lines as when
Centralian College held the licence.
A decision by the (then) Australian Broadcasting Authority to allocate the licence was delayed due to a
competing bid …
which they had not anticipated; there was another community group in Alice Springs which put in a bid:
- In March 2005, 8CCC was asked to submit further responses to clarify our application. This was duly completed by
the March 20 deadline.
It was during this phase that categorical support from Charles Darwin University was made in writing and also
encouraged the Memorandum of Agreement to be drawn once licence was finalised. The document also iterated
that the university would only be supporting the 8CCC Community Radio Inc application.
On 22 July 2005, a further three questions from the (now) Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA)
were delivered to 8CCC with an August 12 deadline. Question one asked:
- Please provide evidence to verify that the CDU will continue to allow 8CCC to use its facilities and
management systems in the future.
As we had signed confirmation that this would be the case, this seemed simple enough to address. It was a during a
teleconference on Thursday, 4 August 2005, discussing program concerns with the 8TOP-FM Manager in Darwin that
8CCC learned that the university had withdrawn its support for our license application and a letter to this effect had already
been received by the ACMA.
At no point during the months leading up to ACMA’s request for further information (22 July 2005) had 8CCC received
any correspondence or phone calls from Charles Darwin University to indicate that the university intended to withdraw
their support. Nor have we received copies of any university correspondence to the ACMA in relation to 8CCC’s application.
That is despicable.
8CCC FM has been located at the current premises since June 1986, almost 20 years. It is now apparent that
Charles Darwin University intends to reclaim the premises, which will effectively force broadcasting on the
102.1 FM frequency to cease.
Charles Darwin University has unashamedly reneged on their continuing support for 8CCC and have done so underhandedly.
By not keeping us informed of their intentions over recent months, they have also deceived 8CCC, our supporters and the
community.
This withdrawal of support has come completely out of the blue. Subsequent teleconferences with Scott Snyder,
Executive Director Corporate Services Charles Darwin University (in Darwin) makes it clear that the university would
like to apply for the licence in their own right. The Berrimah Line is alive and well! However, the university is unable to
apply for the licence as applications closed in October 2004. So after almost 25 years, will 8CCC no longer broadcast
because of Darwin decisions?
There is a major issue here, Madam Speaker. This radio station has been managed by a community group for almost 20 years. They have had ups and downs and there have been financial difficulties at times. They have been able to secure good sponsorship at other times. There have been good relationships with Darwin at times, and other times – just like with any community group – there has been fall out.
What rationale Charles Darwin University has to do what it has done, I do not know. I admit this is one side of the argument. I have not heard from Charles Darwin University and I will follow it through over the next few days to find out why it has done what it has done. The radio station is patronised by Alice Springs and Tennant Creek people. There is good and continuing financial support through sponsorship of programs on the station; they have good ethnic language programs on the station as well. It would be a tragedy to see 8CCC community radio wound up in Alice Springs.
I have been associated with the radio station for a long time. As I said, I was Chairman of the Alice Springs College of TAFE, I was part of the organising committee which got it off the ground and then continued, as College Chair, to foster the radio station through until the days of the Centralian College. It is important for the university administration to discuss this matter openly and without any reservation with the community groups. If they have issues with them, I would be more than happy to be the facilitator to try to iron out any issues that may be there.
If what is conveyed in this letter is the truth, then there has been some underhanded activities going on, and I am not very pleased with that.
I have a few minutes remaining, and I recognise the comment by the member for Wanguri that I tend to take up the whole of my 15 minutes, but I guard the privilege to speak in adjournment jealously. It is an opportunity for us to raise issues in parliament when no other opportunity is available.
I want to talk about this petition that has been circulated by government. I picked up several of them from stands at the Darwin Show a few weeks ago. I picked them up from the DEET stand, the DPIF stand, the Department of the Chief Minister stand, the Department of Justice stand, and one from the Treasury stand. I was advised that Sport and Recreation also had the petition at their stand. Last week, I received this in my letterbox in Alice Springs, one in my electorate office, and my electorate officer received one. Obviously there has been a mass mail-out.
Mr Henderson: Given you oppose the dump, you should be signing the petition.
Dr LIM: People are particularly sensitive about this.
Mr Henderson: No, no. We would just like to see you sign it. You oppose the dump.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Dr LIM: I thought: ‘What is happening here?’ This is government policy and is now being promulgated through the public service. I recall something called a Good Governance election policy; Labor’s Plan to Build a Better Territory. There are things in there that this government said. I went searching for it, and it is interesting. The boot is on the other foot, obviously. It wanted to support a reformed parliament, and one of the things it wanted to do was to support the integrity of public servants. It says this:
- The CLP has shown a lack of respect for accepted standards of behaviour in government. Labor is committed to ending
practices that interfere with the separation of powers, that undermine the independence of the judiciary, that breach accepted
standards of ministerial accountability and propriety. We all need to ensure that government agencies and public servants
are able to operate freely without direct party political interference and influence.
Then it goes on to talk about ministerial responsibilities, etcetera. If this is not government abusing its power and dragging the public service into this sort of behaviour, it is unworthy of the government that aspires to do the right thing, to be honest, open and fair. This is truly unfair. I was at the Darwin Show for a couple of days, and on the first day it was not there - then guess what happened! One of the middle managers in the public service came to the CLP show stand and said: ‘Do you know this is happening? This is offensive’. That public servant did not like it. ‘We have to get this out, ask people to sign it. It is just not right’.
That is how I found about it. Then I took a walk around the show stands looking for these things and they were there. Some of the public servants at the show stand invited me to put my signature on it, so obviously if they did that with me, they must have done that with other people who attended the show.
That is not right. I ask the government to seriously consider how it has politicised the public service. It is just another indication of what this government has done. Madam Speaker, you would be interested in this. This is part of the same document, Good Governance: Labor’s Plan to Build a Better Territory. In the Legislative Assembly Chamber, guess what it says! I remind you:
- Question Time has become a vehicle for ministerial grandstanding …
Geez! It describes some people that I know:
- … with answers taking up to half an hour, and deviating into unrelated topics. Labor believes answers should be succinct and
relevant. Some other jurisdictions have rules of parliament (Standing Orders) that restrict answers to a time limit. Labor would
adopt a similar approach, setting answers to a maximum length of five minutes.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to share with you some of the enjoyable moments and visits I have experienced recently in my electorate with my wonderful constituents.
August is a very special time for us. It is Seniors Month, a time when we should all let seniors in our community know how much they mean to us by doing something special for them. I know sometimes seniors can be very isolated; I have experienced that while I have been doorknocking. People look forward to someone knocking on their door so they can have a coffee and spend a few minutes in the company of other people. Some of our seniors are very isolated and lonely.
One special senior in my electorate has certainly made me feel very special. Instead of me giving her a gift, she gave one to me. I was very privileged and happy to be personally presented with a beautiful painting of an old neighbourhood of Nicosia in Cyprus. It was painted by one of my senior constituents residing in Tambling Terrace, Ms Yvonne Sinclair. Yvonne said that she wanted to give me something as a thank you for what I do for the seniors in my electorate. I do not do much; I host morning teas. However, I always visit them, listen to their concerns and try to help them.
Ms Yvonne Sinclair is a credit to our community. Yvonne and her husband, Ian, came to the Territory in 1972. They lived in Gove from 1972 to 1979, where Ian worked for Nabalco and Yvonne worked at Woolworths. They moved to Darwin in 1979 and, since their retirement, they have settled into Tambling Terrace Seniors Village since it was built in early 2001.
Yvonne has a fantastic garden. She spends a lot of time in, and I reckon that it is equivalent to the George Brown Botanic Gardens. In such a small area, she has managed to create a beautiful garden with lots of plants and flowers, beautifully organised with statues and gravel. She says that it gives her an opportunity to ease her rheumatoid arthritis. I do not know she manages with rheumatoid arthritis to do the work she does in the garden, but it always looks immaculate and clean. I am thinking of employing her to fix my garden because my garden looks like a jungle, plus I do not have the time to attend to it.
They have won first prize every year since they entered the Fabulous Garden competition in the Territory Housing Garden Competition, having been announced the winner for the fourth year in a row just this week.
Yvonne said her mother was an artist and she acquired her painting talents from her. She has only been painting for the past three years, and finds that she thoroughly enjoys it. All of her paintings are given away as gifts to her family and friends. I would like to thank Yvonne very much for the beautiful painting of Nicosia. I was very proud to hang it in my electorate office where everyone can admire it.
I turn now to schools. As I promised, after the first part of the upgrade of Nakara Primary was completed, I was delighted to attend the official opening of the upgraded staff room facility a couple of weeks ago. Stage 1 is now completed, as we promised before the 2001 election. A lot of people worked on the upgrade and there were some problems. One of the interesting problems was that they were delayed for six weeks because the people who designed and rebuilt the staff room could not get structural steel. There was such a demand in the Territory for structural steel, they had to wait for it from interstate. Not only that, but people who had other skills like tilers, all of a sudden converted to roofers because they could get more money by installing the roof and corrugated iron than they would earn as tilers.
I have to say that the upgraded staff room is absolutely magnificent: an indoor and outdoor area for teachers to relax and prepare. I was very happy to share a few drinks with them and celebrate the opening of the new school.
The other school that is currently under renovation is Alawa Primary. Local building firm PTM Homes won the contract of $2m to upgrade the school. They commenced the demolition of the old classrooms when the school went into recess for holidays. They have already poured the slab and, as the principal of the school, Ms Sharon Reeves, told me, they were very helpful, always consulting with the school about when to start jack hammering or demolition and building so they did not inconvenience the school or create problems for teaching the children.
Alawa Primary School is a very innovative school, and I was recently invited to have a look at one of the newest acquisitions, an interactive whiteboard. I felt like a kid in a lolly shop because it is one fantastic whiteboard. You can actually, with your finger, write on the whiteboard and, immediately, it will be transferred to a computer. They can put on the whiteboard models or graphs or teaching aids for the children, and can show the whole class while the kids can work on the whiteboard and their work will go directly to the computer. I would like to congratulate Sharon and her staff of the fantastic job they are doing at the Alawa Primary School, one of the most multicultural schools in the Northern Territory.
Dripstone High is a school that is well known for academic achievements, but also for its links with other schools, not only in Australia but overseas. Dripstone High has a very close relationship with Kibi Cho High School in Japan. Kibi Cho is a regional high school in an area where the major product is oranges and other citrus. Every year, children and teachers from Kibi Cho visit Darwin, attending one or two week classes at Dripstone and, in exchange, children and teachers from Dripstone will go to Kibi Cho in Japan to attend classes there.
This year we had about 20 students and teachers from Kibi Cho and were very privileged to have two billets, two Japanese boys 14 years old, who did not speak a word of English. It made for interesting conversation. I have to admit that my wife, Marg, and I had a few difficulties communicating with them but our two sons, Alexander and Michael, did not have any difficulty at all. They spent most of their time either playing computer games or out shooting at the basketball ring. I always find it amazing that kids can get along so well and so easily, even when they come from different cultures and do not speak the language.
I have been advised that the kids were very impressed when they came to parliament. That particular day, I was away at Pigeon Hole, but the kids came up to my ministerial office where they had morning tea. I thank the member for Wanguri for greeting them, and yourself, Madam Speaker, for welcoming them and showing them around. I believe they were very impressed that they were sitting in your chair and taking photographs. I do not think they have ever had an opportunity to go to the Japanese parliament, but they were lucky enough to come to the Northern Territory parliament. When I asked a few of them, the ones who speak English, if they enjoyed it, they were speaking so quickly so enthusiastically that Japanese and English languages were mixed, but I got the message that they were very excited and very impressed.
Last week, I and the member of Wanguri were privileged and very happy to have an update on the new suburb of Lyons. The people from the company that will construct the new suburb of Lyons gave us a presentation at the office of the member for Wanguri. We were briefed in the presence of Aldermen John Bailey and Jan Collins. They explained the work they have done with neighbours, how they are going to address problems with traffic, and how they are going to avoid problems with congestion when several new blocks will be subdivided and new houses will be built in the suburb of Lyons.
Our understanding is that they will be working very closely with the council and a traffic report will be lodged with Darwin City Council on 15 August before the report is provided to the Development Consent Authority where it will be heard on 7 September. The member for Wanguri and I are very interested in the new development of the suburb of Lyons. I am well aware that people in Darwin are queuing up to buy a block in the area. The other day, I was in the supermarket when a lady apologised for disturbing me when I was doing my shopping, but she asked me how she could put a deposit on a block in Lyons. I directed her to the web page of Defence Housing Authority where, apparently, you can put your name down. I have been advised that there will be a lottery for the houses to be allocated because something in the order of 400 houses are going to be allocated to the public, and I believe they have an excess of 2000 applications.
The other day I was very pleased to visit the Casuarina Coastal Reserve and see that the realignment of Trower Road, funded by the Territory government, is now complete. It is fantastic. It has taken away the cars from the houses so that people are not complaining any more about lights shining into their bedrooms or their lounge rooms and there has been a reduction in noise.
I was particularly pleased to meet a couple of people from the council in the area and they advised that the council has allocated $130 000 to landscape the realignment, the traffic islands and the roundabout. I am looking forward to seeing the plans that the council will produce after consultation with the public about the landscaping of the area.
I was also pleased to receive a letter the other day from the Lord Mayor of Darwin, Peter Adamson, who advised me that the council made a decision to extend the closure of the laneway between Kilfoyle Crescent and Bradshaw Terrace for another few months. As you are aware, I had campaigned very strongly for that laneway to be closed because it was a focus for antisocial behaviour. Also, it was an escape route for people, if they had committed antisocial acts or vandalism. When the police tried to chase them, they would run through this laneway and disappear in the surrounding suburbs.
Following my lobbying, and with the assistance of Casuarina Shopping Square, it was decided that gates would be installed. Casuarina Shopping Square security officers lock the gates at 7 o’clock at night and reopen them at 6 o’clock in the morning. Since then, during my campaigning and doorknocking, I have discovered that antisocial behaviour in the area has completely gone done. People are quite happy that they do not have the level of vandalism they had before and that proves that council has seriously to consider the future of laneways and consult with the local residents. This is not the first time. I believe the Amsterdam Road laneway was closed as well, and that reduced antisocial behaviour in the area.
The Lord Mayor of Darwin wrote to me and asked me to make a submission as to whether or not I support the closure of the laneway. I was very pleased to write to the Lord Mayor and advise him that I fully supported the closure of the laneway, not an extension for a few months, but total closure of the laneway because the results speak for themselves.
I also asked the council to have a really good look at a number of laneways that they have in Darwin. I believe they have in excess of 150. Most of them create problems. Some of them are used by residents. In respect of the ones that cause problems, it is appropriate for the council to consider the future of the laneways and do what other councils around Australia did. In a particular area in Western Australia where I worked in local government, we had a very similar problem with laneways and the local government decided to close them, divide them in two and offer them for sale for a nominal fee to the adjoining blocks. By doing that, not only did they not have to maintain them any more, but it completely eliminated a focus of antisocial behaviour and the residents were very pleased.
Hopefully, the council will consult with local residents and will continue to listen to local residents and will consider the future of laneways and close them as is appropriate. The comments I received from the residents and the police about the effect of the closure of the laneway in the area are fantastic. It really indicates that if you provide anti-crime measures in an area like improved lighting and closing laneways, you can significantly reduce antisocial behaviour in the area.
I commend the council for their initiative to extend the closure and I commend Casuarina Shopping Square for being such a good corporate citizen and participating in this trial.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to talk about a couple of things, the first of which is the 2005 Golf for Breast Cancer day which was held in Alice Springs on Friday, 12 August. I am very proud to be one of several organisers of this event, which is in its third year.
I would like to thank the other organisers, Karen Jones, Deb Pepper, Tracey Guerin, Michelle Goodwin and Jo Hansen, and extend thanks to Dee Davies as well as Jan Wilkie who provided their assistance. In particular, I thank all of the businesses in Alice Springs that gave so generously. At the conclusion of my comments, I will table, as I did last year I think, a copy of the program for the day.
It is clear that this event has been well supported by the business community, and many of them not the usual suspects, Madam Speaker, when it comes to businesses that are ordinarily contacted to provide sponsorship for these sorts of things. We had a number of prizes. We had all 18 holes of the golf course sponsored. We had probably 40 or 50 sponsors and an advertisement is going to be placed in the Centralian Advocate on Friday thanking all of those people.
As I said, this is the third year. In the first year, we had about 80 women who participated and we only used nine holes of the Alice Springs Golf Course, one of the best golf courses in the world. In the second year, the numbers increased to about 110 or 120. This year, like last year, we used all 18 holes of the golf course. We had almost 200 women, or 44 or 45 teams participating on the day.
It seems to have become an event on the social calendar for women in Alice Springs. Teams dressed up; some of the costumes were truly amazing. I think next year we will need to have first, second and third prizes for the best dressed teams.
I thank all of the blokes who helped out. It is the case, clearly, that men have mothers, daughters, wives, sisters who are affected by breast cancer. We had so many men offering to help. Their help was invaluable and, in so many respects, immeasurable. It was a great community event and I am very pleased and honoured to be part of a team that organises it.
Madam Speaker will recall that I sent an e-mail to Labor members of parliament a couple of weeks ago alerting them to this event. This is not about politics; it is about raising money for a very important cause.
I am very pleased to say that the member for Macdonnell came along and I understand that she had a very enjoyable time. A little birdie told me that when she arrived and saw the teams and the lengths to which many of them went to get dressed up, the member for Macdonnell was overheard to be discussing with her team mates what they might wear next year to get into the spirit of things. It is great that, as leaders in our community, politicians, particularly women politicians, turn up to this event and I will certainly be making the same invitation to all women members of parliament next year.
The money that we raise will go directly, this year, to the National Breast Cancer Foundation. We have worked with the NT Cancer Council in the past, but have been clear to date at least that the money raised is to go specifically to breast cancer research. It was in about December last year that I was in Darwin attending a breast cancer function, and one of the representatives from the National Breast Cancer Foundation was in Darwin, where she gave a presentation and I met her. It was through that connection that I then contacted her and we have now arranged for funds to go directly to the Breast Cancer Foundation.
I have received correspondence from the Breast Cancer Foundation and I wish to quote a couple of paragraphs from it:
- The National Breast Cancer Foundation actively promotes and supports breast cancer research in all its forms. It is an
Australia-wide not-for-profit foundation. To date, almost $20m has been allocated to support 93 research grants, a career
development award, two post-doctoral fellowships, 12 scholarships, and two enabling grants across Australia.
This level of support would not have been possible without the ongoing contributions from companies and individuals who
have given so generously.
Through funding research that investigates every aspect of breast cancer, we can provide better health outcomes for women.
As a result of research conducted over the last decade, we have identified better methods of detection and treatment, and the
survival rate is increasing.
It is only with further research that we will continue to understand this complex disease, in time identifying its causes and giving
us the potential to prevent it.
Madam Speaker, although we still are literally counting the money, we anticipate getting reasonably close to $10 000, which, in this day and age, is not bad for any fund raising activity.
There are so many people to thank, it is appropriate that we put an ad in the Centralian Advocate, but to everyone: the women, the men, the organisers, the sponsors, to those who turned up, to those who just provided support, I extend a heartfelt thank you on behalf of all members of this Assembly. I seek leave to table a copy of the program. It may be of some use.
Leave granted.
Ms CARNEY: I wish to speak, again relatively briefly, about another matter that I have been contacted about, as a member of parliament. In particular, I want to comment about an article that appeared in the Alice Springs News on 27 July 2005. The article to which I refer was head lined No level playing field for kids’ sports travel. I seek leave to table a copy of the article.
Leave granted.
Ms CARNEY: The story has a front page lead, and is in its expanded form on page three. The article centres on a person I know in Alice Springs, Mr Paul Lelliott and his children. The article concentrates on the disparity between the assistance given from various funding sources to indigenous and non-indigenous Territorians. Mr Lelliott is clearly unhappy that there appear to be two sets of rules separating him from Aboriginal parents in the community. The support available to he and his wife is limited when compared to the support from the Commonwealth government that is offered to Aboriginal children.
Just because Mr Lelliott is not of Aboriginal extraction, he is not able to access the funds that Aboriginal people can tap into. There are certainly Aboriginal people in Alice Springs who do earn more than Mr Lelliott, as there are doubtlessly many Aboriginal people who earn less. The funding available is not, however, means tested; it is based on the colour, it seems, of children’s skin.
Mr Lelliott and I are certainly not criticising the fact that money is available for indigenous kids. That should be the case, and the more money, the better. However, the point is raised because it does seem incongruous that there is a clear divide or difference between outcomes for kids involved in sport and, in particular, non-indigenous and indigenous kids. It seems unfair and unjust, and Mr Lelliott, I am told, has received a number of phone calls from other people.
These are decent, right-thinking people. It is not a race issue as such; they do not begrudge money for Aboriginal kids. What they are saying is that there are some non-Aboriginal kids who also deserve and require some help for them to participate in their sport, and all of us would have some sympathy with that because all of us want to see as many kids as possible participate in sport.
According to the newspaper report, the Commonwealth government has its programs and the Territory government has its when it comes to sport and kids. The Commonwealth government’s project is, as I understand it, indigenous-specific, but the Northern Territory government does not appear to be doing anything to fill the gap.
I am simply asking this government to do something about this. Saying that it is the Commonwealth government’s fault is not good enough, but it is also not good enough on the part of the Commonwealth government either.
I take this opportunity to urge the minister for sport to write to the Commonwealth government about this matter. I want the minister to contact her federal counterpart so that this sort of inequity does not continue to exist. It would certainly be a better result for Mr Lelliott and his family if the Northern Territory sports minister contacted him direct to talk with him about this.
I get the impression that the minister has not taken an active interest in the matter, and I understand Mr Lelliott is somewhat disappointed as a result. It is a sad day when kids miss out on sporting trips based on nothing more than their colour. It seems as though something is wrong somewhere and I urge the minister for sport to pick this matter up and to pursue it with her federal counterpart.
For my part, I will be writing to the Commonwealth government with a view to seeing what I can do or what information I can obtain and provide to Mr Lelliott. As I said, I ask the Territory government’s sporting minister to do the same.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Madam Speaker, it is a sad occasion but, at the same time, a very proud occasion for me to have the opportunity, as the member for Millner, to speak about the life of Eunice Lee. It is funny how God works in mysterious ways. We have had U3A visit in the last two days, and Eunice was a member. I have a U3A newsletter, which dedicates an article to the memory of Eunice Lee. This has been adapted from a eulogy at Eunice’s funeral by Joyce Deering:
- Eunice was a member of U3A for many years, one of the wheelies who took up their position near the front of the meeting.
I first met Eunice when we both were patients at the old Darwin Rehab Centre in Parap in 1988.
We had both recently returned from long-term hospitalisation in Adelaide and began following up rehab locally, and took part
in many of the exercises and strengthening work that ultimately enabled us to get out and about again in the Darwin community.
Even though it was by different means than before, she enjoyed the trips that we went on, in the early days, and was not happy if
the bus that brings the wheelies was running late, which often it was.
I will remember her as a caring and loving woman, whose greatest love was for her family and friends, not asking for herself, as
long as others were being cared for. That was seen in her last recent long stay in Royal Darwin Hospital. If the nurses were busy,
she would wait and not keep pressing the bell.
- Eunice was born in Claremont, Western Australia and had two older brothers. She did both primary and secondary schooling
at Claremont Central School, leaving at age 14 to begin work as a shop assistant at Claremont Shopping Centre, then as a clerk
at the Central Dairy Office. She also partner with her mother in an office cleaning business.
In November 1961, Eunice moved to Darwin in pursuit of romance and worked at the Parap Tavern, Woolworths and the
Hong Kong Caf. Living in a boarding house, her landlady referred to a chap next door and said to Eunice: ‘That is a good
man to marry’, and indeed they did.
Eunice married Richard Lee in the Darwin Registry Office in 1964. Her mother was convinced she had married a Chinaman
when she heard the name Lee and thought she would be taken off to Beijing.
Eunice and Richard had five daughters and in their early married life lived in a shack at what is now Nightcliff High School.
In 1966, they moved into the current family home in Millner. Eunice gave up working and concentrated on being a housewife
and bringing up the children after the birth of her second daughter.
Eunice was a wonderful mother and the envy of the girls’ friends and neighbour’s children. A good cook, she used to make
lovely cakes, but the girls were not cake eaters so other kids would often call in to get a serve. After a time, she stopped
making them.
She instilled into her daughters the qualities of honesty, to treat people as equals regardless of colour, race or creed, try to be
ladies and, in public, never to swear or talk about religion or politics.
She provided good advice to her daughters and grandchildren and did not like any of her family spending money on her.
Eunice loved attending U3A and learning different things and met there another Lee, Bob, who affectionately called her ‘little sister’.
She also had many good friends in the disabled community and was a member of other community groups.
Eunice liked to read about politics, a good murder mystery and the royal family. She also loved riding her electronic scooter at the
Water Gardens and along the Nightcliff foreshore to the boat ramp. It was her freedom. She also enjoyed classical music
especially Richard Tauber and Nelson Eddy.
The most important thing to Eunice was her family and all she wanted was to be well and happy to enjoy her family.
Madam Speaker, Eunice Lee was a fantastic lady who was a member of the Millner community for over 40 years. She was a backbone of her neighbourhood.
Her death is really a sad occasion because she was one of the first supporters who really got behind me as the local member. She knew Terry Smith, Jon Isaacs, Ken Parish and other members of the Australian Labor Party who represented the area for many, many years. She often voiced her opinion. She was a good strong Labor supporter and I know she will be sadly missed by her daughters. I wish her well upstairs in the big house.
Madam Speaker, the other matter I would like to raise tonight is some information passed on to me by the Minister for Defence Support. As people may know, the RAAF Base is in my electorate, and I have done many hours of doorknocking and working in that area over the last four years. I have come to know the area quite well and have been a great supporter of the Defence Force football team, which trains on the base.
It is my understanding that on the 50th anniversary of the RAAF in 1976, Hawker and De Havilland presented the Hawker Siddeley Trophy in recognition of the close business relationship between the three organisations. Since then, the trophy has been awarded each year to the most proficient RAAF Base.
In June 2005, the trophy was awarded to RAAF Base Darwin for the tireless dedication, professionalism and teamwork of the RAAF Base Darwin unit and personnel during 2004 in ensuring that all exercises, deployment operational support tasks and defence aid to civil community support requests were achieved. In particular, the outstanding success of the high profile five nations exercise Pitch Black 2004 drew special praise.
This is the letter sent by the Minister for Defence Support, Paul Henderson, to Group Captain Mark Kelton, Officer Commanding RAAF Base Darwin:
- Dear Group Captain Kelton,
Congratulations to you and your personnel on being awarded the Hawker Siddeley Trophy for being the most proficient
Royal Australian Force RAAF Base during 2004.
The Darwin RAAF Base has a long and distinguished history in the City of Darwin, from the defence of our nation during
World War II through to today’s civilian aid relief and overall and contribution to the local community and the Northern
Territory economy.
Indeed, we, the people of the Northern Territory, are fortunate and proud to have such a Defence presence in our mist and
we share in some manner the pride you have in being the recipient of this award.
The Northern Territory government looks forward to continuing to support RAAF Base Darwin in its endeavours.
Madam Speaker, as the local member, I hope to continue to represent the personnel and families of the RAAF Base Darwin to the best of my ability, and I congratulate them on this award.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I recently attended the launch of Seniors Week in Palmerston. There is as a group of seniors who go to special efforts above and beyond the other celebrations throughout the Territory, and focus specifically on events for Palmerston. It is a very full program that they manage to put together.
The launch was held at Woodroffe Primary School. I am no good at estimations, but I estimate that over 100 seniors attended. There was a barbeque staffed by volunteers. Quite a few people attended the event in an official or semi-official capacity. As well as myself, Senator Trish Crossin attended, as did member of the House of Representatives, Mr Tollner, and the member for Nelson. There were representatives from the Palmerston City Council, Robert Macleod and Judy Joyce. In fact, Judy Joyce represented the Mayor and officially opened the event.
It really was a great afternoon. I could not stay for the whole event. I had my wife, Sharon, and son with me. We sat at a table speaking with George and Phyl Barrand. George was providing the music on an electric organ. He and Phyl were telling me that he donates his time and provides music for many different functions not just in and around Palmerston, but throughout Darwin as well.
We each received a Happiness Kit. If I remember correctly, these were created by Cath, Joy, Dotty and Pam. They included an eraser so that you can erase your past mistakes, a rose - all hand made by the ladies who put their little packs together - there was a little saying in with them; it was a really nice thing to be handing around to everyone who attended, so well done to them.
Of course, there were the Senior Songsters who provided entertainment and they will be singing at the closing ceremony as well, I understand.
Another event I attended was the Union Picnic Day on Sunday, 7 August. That was organised by Unions NT and Bechtel, which shows what you can do when you have an employer who is not anti-union for the sake of being anti-union. As many people would know, the site is a very well unionised workplace where unions and management work things out amicably. The company supports and recognises the valuable role that the unions have.
At least 200 people attended the barbecue at Marlow Lagoon Reserve. The food and soft drinks were all free, supplied by Bechtel. There was a talented guitarist/vocalist, Wynton Nathan, who played and sang for everyone who attended. He is an AWU delegate at the Bechtel site.
A number of speakers addressed the audience, focusing, obviously, on the potential effects of the Howard government’s industrial relations reform. They included myself, Joe Gallagher, who is the President of Unions NT, Senator Trish Crossin spoke on behalf of the federal parliamentary Labor wing as well as NT Labor, Jamey Robertson, a well-known union official from the AMWU and something of a Northern Territory and Darwin personality, and Gordon McDonald from the AWU.
Dr Lloyd Kent was there from the Council of Churches NT. He delivered a speech on behalf of the Council of Churches NT, and made it clear that the views that were being expressed were the views of that council and not him personally. Many noted the concerns about government having a role to look after the community and families, not just the economic policy. It sounded very similar to what the other speakers had been saying. Many people were interested to obtain a copy of his speech, including me, to ponder over it some more. He came at the issue from a slightly different perspective, but it is good to know that the Council of Churches is aware of what is going on and have some concerns about the process. It debunks the myth that any opposition is simply coming from Labor or union political interests.
The picnic day was a fantastic and undoubted success. I understand that more are in the pipeline, and I certainly look forward to attending more of these events. I encourage all members to get down to any picnic days or other union organised family activities because it really is about families. Unions do not operate in isolation. Unions are not some third party organisation. A union is its members and their families, so it is fantastic to see Unions NT along with a major employer like Bechtel organising something like this and I hope that other employers will do the same.
I would like to make mention of Michelle Wilson from Palmerston Christian School, who won Palmerston’s own writing competition in the short stories category. I understand that she lives in my electorate of Brennan, so congratulations to Michelle for that wonderful achievement.
I have made a point of visiting various schools in and around my electorate. I do not confine myself simply to Brennan, but try to visit all schools in Palmerston because I am taking a whole-of-Palmerston approach. Gray Primary School has just opened its Homework Centre where students are encouraged to go and do their homework. Unfortunately, it stopped functioning, I understand, due to delays in funding from the Commonwealth government but, thankfully, that has all been worked out.
Staff work there predominantly on a volunteer basis. It is very important for students in primary school years to get a solid foundation in literacy and numeracy. The commitment of all teachers at the schools I have visited is fantastic; they all do volunteer work above and beyond the normal duties of a teacher, and there is really is a sense of community.
I would like to mention the breakfast club program, which is run by the Red Cross at Gray Primary School, and I think it runs at Moulden Park Primary School. I have volunteered to assist with the program at Gray; it is fantastic. Those kids who may not get breakfast at home are able to access a free breakfast to ensure that they are then able to concentrate through the morning and make the most of their learning opportunities. You can only congratulate the Red Cross for running that program in conjunction with the schools. Gray also has a morning tea program of much the same principle. My first day was interesting. I watched some of the older hands and how they handled children, very cleverly enforced certain rules, but in a way that the children were not necessarily aware that rules were being enforced. It is a great privilege to be part of that program, and I am sure that I will provide further feedback as time goes on.
I have mentioned Moulden Park Primary School, and I have to mention the fantastic work that Greg Jarvis, Principal, and Bronwyn Clee, Community Officer, are doing. Bronwyn runs the FAST program, which received an award during NAIDOC week for the way that Moulden Park Primary involves the wider community in its events. It is an innovative program. Bronwyn was explaining one of the first things she did was open an exchange whereby people could bring old clothes and exchange them for other old clothes that other parents had brought in. It shows what can be done if someone can think outside the square and has a deal of enthusiasm.
I want to put on record that the culture of the school was apparent from the moment you set foot on the school grounds. The feeling was just wonderful; the children treated each other and their teachers with respect, and it was a fantastic atmosphere that could palpably be felt.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, earlier in the day, I was pleased and honoured to support the motion of the Minister for Public Employment on the Commonwealth government’s undermining of Territorians’ pay and working conditions. Great contributions were made by all members of the House.
In my contribution, I concluded by praising Henry Lawson and his strong commitment to Australia and to the union movement. I finished with a recitation of The Ballad of 1891. I would like to tell the House about The Ballad of 1891 and to give a little bit of the history to really round off my contribution. I am quoting from information on a web site:
- In 1891 the squatters (pastoralists) went on the offensive in Queensland, drawing up a proposed agreement for the 1891 shearing
season that abandoned the recently won eight-hour day and did not recognise unions. The shearers rejected this on January
6, 1891, and the first great shearers' strike began. The scale of the confrontation and the organisation of the strikers was
unprecedented, perhaps taking Australia the closest it has been to civil war.
The government organised ships and train loads of scabs, escorted by police and heavily armed troops to get them through the
pickets to the shearing sheds. The strikers established huge bush camps. These served to house and organise the strikers
throughout the campaign and were run by elected committees. The strikers' resolve was strengthened the arrest of key strike
leaders on May 1, 1891. 1500 armed strikers marched through the town of Barcaldine. At the same time Rockhampton begins
the trial of the unionists arrested at Clermont and Barcaldine and 12 were gaoled for conspiracy.
In 1950 Helen Palmer wrote this poem which was set to music by Doreen Jacobs and was soon taken up by Australian workers
facing a new spate of anti-union legislation form the Menzies Liberal government. The song became central to New Theatre's
production of Dick Diamond's play Reedy River that opened in 1953.
My humble apologies to the House and to all aficionados who love Henry Lawson. The Ballad of 1891 is not Henry Lawson’s. It would have been a terrible thing had I started singing it into Hansard. We would have had them all out on strike upstairs.
I thank the Hansard and Table Office staff for their assistance in helping me find the errors of my attributions. I thank the House for giving me the opportunity this evening to correct my injustice to Helen. Nonetheless, I commend the works of Henry Lawson to each and every member and the works of Helen Palmer.
Ms McCARTHY (Arnhem): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to share with parliament the story of an extraordinary day, Thursday, 28 July 2005, in a faraway community from where we now sit.
Let me take you down the Stuart Highway some 400 km, turning east another 150 km, across the breathtaking Roper and Wilton River crossings to the community of Ngukurr. It is a day that begins with unease and conflict, with concerns between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people over the issue of alcohol permits. Many residents shared with me their thoughts on this latest issue, which divided so many and had the potential to be a division based on race.
I will side track from this day by giving a little bit of history. While the date of the recent Northern Territory election was important to those of us here in the parliament, the date of Saturday, 18 June 2005 held other significance to the people of Ngukurr. They voted on whether the alcohol permit system should continue in the community where only non-Aboriginal people held permits to drink. Those participating in the ballot were asked to vote yes or no to two questions:
- (1) Should all Yugul Mangi Council region be dry?; and
(2) Do you support liquor permits for Yugul Mangi?
About 350 people voted and 59% voted in favour of no permits. Despite mixed views on council, the ballot was accepted as valid by the Yugul Mangi Council. Not all the residents were happy, with some saying they did not have the chance to be heard. It is at this point that I return to the story of that day, Thursday, 28 July 2005.
I arrived by road while the Licensing Commission flew to Ngukurr to consult again with the community before making a final decision. The commission had separate meetings with the Community Council, police, teachers, health workers and some individuals before a public meeting was held later that afternoon. I attended that meeting so I could listen to the issues raised. It was a meeting that was well attended with about 20 speakers.
While the majority were completely against the issue of alcohol permits in Ngukurr, the views of some of the 17 permit holders were also expressed. Some spoke of the fact that if Ngukurr became a completely dry community, some people would leave the community and it will be difficult in future to recruit police, teachers or health people to the area. Others described serious problems due to alcohol and drug abuse by some community members that result in harm to family, community and individuals. I add here, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, that no permit holder was accused of breaching their permits at any stage, but the community recognised that the negative impact of alcohol was prominent in Ngukurr.
The Licensing Commission listened to all points of view. The voice of the majority of the people in Ngukurr was strong. That evening, co-incidentally, there was a visit by interstate musicians, which lifted the mood rather dramatically. It was to be a day of contrasts. The Australian Art Orchestra, directed by Paul Grabowski, had arrived to perform a musical alliance with Ruby Hunter and Archie Roach, an alliance that also included collaboration with the elders and traditional song men and women of the region.
It truly was a magnificent sight to see, and the sound was just spectacular: the sounds of the didgeridoo and clap sticks combined with the orchestra to create a musical sensation unheard of in Ngukurr. The orchestra even followed the sounds of the song men as they sang in language. It was a performance masterpiece, the melding of two cultures.
It came about because of an established relationship over five years between the Ngukurr community and contemporary music education activities within the Northern Territory and Stephen Teakle, who has acted as the catalyst of this endeavour. Over the next two years, the orchestra and the traditional song men and women of Ngukurr will continue to create a new, uniquely Australian body of music. The thing that sets this project apart from others is that they are also working to establish a studio centre for music education and archiving in Ngukurr based upon the large amount of high quality industry-ready musicians who call Ngukurr home.
Paul Grabowski and members of the orchestra and Stephen Teakle as the Northern Territory organiser believe it is necessary to leave something more tangible behind rather than just visit, perform and then leave. So they actually leave bricks and mortar behind, such as guitars, amplifiers and mixing desks so that, in time, the current generation of contemporary musicians have the tools to take on the responsibility of helping establish and manage such a centre into the future.
It gives me a deep sense of hope for the future for the people of Ngukurr to see such commitment by people within the community and those outside who seek to share their skills. It was truly a day of diversity of opinions on a complex issue like alcohol permits that had divided black and white, and yet it ended in a harmonious musical blend of black and white culture.
In closing, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the NT Licensing Commission last week brought down its decision on the liquor permits at Ngukurr. When current permits expire at the end of this month, any applications to renew will be refused. Furthermore, no fresh applications will be approved until the Ngukurr community clearly supports the reintroduction of an appropriate permit system. A regional approach to the grog issue in the Ngukurr region has also been encouraged by the NT Licensing Commission. I sincerely wish the Yugul Mangi Council well, and look forward to travelling back to Ngukurr again very soon.
Ms SACILOTTO (Port Darwin): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise this evening to speak of the fantastic events, achievements and anniversaries throughout the electorate of Port Darwin.
The Tropical Garden Spectacular 2005 was a huge success, with many different events being staged over the two days. It was my great pleasure to present the awards and prizes for the Public Housing Garden competition on behalf of minister McAdam. I was pleased to note that Dora Hunter of Stuart Park in my electorate of Port Darwin won third prize for her garden and received $150 gift voucher from Jape Homemaker Village and a lovely trophy.
Another such event saw the Port Darwin electorate team head to head with the member for Nelson’s team in the Landscape Olympics. The Nelson electorate team won the battle in the poll of public opinion, although the public took note that an introduction of contraband, also known as Wood Chickens of Nelson, tipped the scales in their favour. A great day was had by all.
As a former student of Stuart Park Primary School, I was very pleased to return recently, not as a student this time, but as the member for Port Darwin, where I met the Principal, Mr Bernie Bree, and Assistant Principal, Mr Richard Woodside who was also, might I add, my teacher in Grade 5. I am sure that he will be very impressed that I have included this today. Principal Bree showed me around the school. I was impressed by the presentation of the school, especially the cleanliness - not a paper or a piece of rubbish in sight. I commend students and staff alike on how they look after their school and ask them to keep up the good work.
I move from the younger members in my electorate to the more senior members. I was delighted to be invited to the 40th anniversary of Spillett House, the home of the Darwin Senior Citizens Association, which also celebrated its 30th year. It was an excellent day, which included lots of hard work by many of the members. Some, but not all, of the hardworking members were Brian Hilder, the President, Kit Holtham and Gwen Wilkinson. The house is an important part of our history. It opened its doors on 10 August 1965, and is named after Peter Spillett who, sadly, passed away in January this year. Peter Spillett was awarded the honour of Senior Territorian in 2005 and was a remarkable man.
Over those 40 years, Spillett House has been a hive of activity, and many Darwin residents would remember it fondly as it was where many important occasions were celebrated, including weddings, 21st birthdays and engagement parties, including that of the current president of Darwin Senior Citizens Incorporated Mr and Mrs Hilder.
The Office of Senior Territorians provided financial assistance in the form of a grant, and the committee has asked me to convey a message of thanks to Anne Coleman and Gemma Lee from that office for their assistance in organising the grant. It was a special treat that our Administrator, His Honour Mr Ted Egan, spontaneously joined in with the organ player to belt out a couple of tunes to the delight of all present.
I should also mention that there is a Seniors Expo on 20 August at Spillett House in Smith Street, primarily an information day specifically aimed at senior services. Some of the exhibitors include the U3A Group, Neighbourhood Watch, NT Carers, St John, Red Cross and the Heart Foundation.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I would like to talk about some events in my electorate.
Obviously, you would be aware that the Northern Territory has a huge difference in its electorates and the people it represents, and I would like to recount one such example of the differences that we have in the Northern Territory.
In the urban electorates, one of the priorities is the removal of apparently unsightly power poles, which has been done over the last few years and will continue. It certainly is appealing to the residents of the urban electorates. However, in my seat of Daly, we have quite a different situation: we love power poles. We do not have enough; we want more.
One of the places affected is on the Daly River. The community in the area of Wooliana Road, which has a long history, and the member for Nelson has some association with that area.
It started it off as obviously the Malakmalak and Kamu people down that way, and then the Europeans came through. They started up a lot of agricultural areas, and it has progressed since then through failed agricultural attempts. Now there are largely businesses dealing with recreational fishing and supporting the community of Nauiyu across the river. There are a lot of older residents down there, a few families, and they are great people.
In 2001 during the election campaign, I was the Labor candidate and the Labor Party made an election promise to provide power down that road and, if there was money left over, to fix the road. Each property there has its own generator and all the associated problems of the high cost of fuel, maintenance and break-downs are experienced, as they are in most regional areas. I have a vision of a good friend of mine, Norma McLeod, hand cranking a 7kVa Lister generator at the age of nearly 80, so conditions are quite poor down that way.
Obviously, Labor won the 2001 election, and works commenced. Over the years from 2001, there have been some delays in the works. They had to relocate the power house that would have powered that road from the community of Daly River up into the flood safe area, up on Wooliana Road near the entrance to the Daly River Road. That was done first, and then they started design work. There were design work problems with clearing scared sites, which was worked through with the land council and the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority.
The total cost of the project or the promise was $1m. This has blown out, and the Labor government has honoured that, which has upped the total to $1.44m at the moment. Recently, after the election, I went out to Port Keats and I knew work was being done down there. I had been actively trying to encourage progress on it. I remember driving into Daly River just on dusk and stopping at the hotel before I started to drive down the Wooliana Road. As I said, it was just on dusk and, as we were driving, I noticed these funny looking things: power poles! Kilometre after kilometre of power poles. It was just as the sun was going down, and I have never seen such a beautiful thing! That is the difference between them being an ugly sight in the northern suburbs yet such a beautiful sight down at the Daly River are.
The current situation is that they have completed the first stage of it, halfway down the road, and the second stage has been given to a contractor. We are hoping for completion in September or October. This example shows the differences in the Northern Territory. It also emphasises the Labor government’s commitment to regional development, which is a focus of this term. We are providing a bit of infrastructure that will promote businesses and lifestyle. People will not have to get up in the middle of the night to crank up the generator and pay $1.50 a litre in fuel; they will have 24-hour power and it will be cheap. They can certainly run some airconditioners in this Build-up, which I am sure will be a humdinger.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, in the Daly, we love power poles and, in September or October, when it finally happens, there will be a hell of a party when the power is switched on. I will enjoy the day as much as I possibly can, but at the same time, I will be bracing myself for the envitable phone calls when the first bat flies into the powerlines and causes an outage.
I congratulate Power and Water, the Department of Planning and Environment, the Northern Land Council, the contractors doing a fabulous job down there, the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority for all of their efforts. I also thank the residents of Wooliana Road for their patience. It has been a long time, I accept that, but it has come, and it has come within four years of a Labor government. We were nearly 30 years under the CLP, and they got absolute nothing. We have a lot more to do down there.
Finally, I thank the Labor government for investing in this project and invite everyone to come down to Wooliana Road when the power is switched on.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016