2012-02-21
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 5/6 Gray Primary School students accompanied by Ms Heather Reed, Mr Cliff Walton, Ms Felisa Morgan and Constable Alphonsus Shields.
On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to our visitors.
Members: Hear, hear!
Continued from 1 December 2011.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I note at the outset last week the Northern Territory government announced a massive legislative program for this parliament. We had about an hour-and-a-half last week, nothing on Thursday and, now, we find ourselves dealing with the Caravan Parks Bill, the only bill to come before this House today. If this is their idea of hard work - goodness gracious me! - it is small wonder the Territory is in the condition it is. They tell us and Territorians they have a legislative program which is fulsome but, frankly, having worked for an hour-and-a-half on that legislative program last week and, now, we find on the first day of the second week we only have one bill to deal with, it is somewhat disappointing.
This bill is what I would call an ‘oops’ bill. In fact, no, more than an ‘oops’ bill; it is a ‘monumental cluster’ bill on the grounds that it seeks to repeal the current caravan parks legislation which, although passed by this House some two years ago, continues to not be assented to and is not gazetted, as far as I am aware. It, clearly, does not operate as a legislative instrument of the Northern Territory.
The other bill created such an onerous environment that I am sure many caravan park operators were very much against the Caravan Parks Bill in its original form. I do not doubt for one second the government will claim to have support of the caravan operators for this bill in its current form. The reason I do not doubt that is because this is a long way away from the onerous burdens which were placed on the caravan park operators as a result of the first bill which was passed by the Assembly, but never passed into law.
We have to remember there is a bit of history behind this legislative instrument which, basically, comes down to the events which occurred surrounding the Sundowner Caravan Park which, as I understand, upset many of the local residents who had been there for some time.
The member for Nelson, before he became the Rob Oakeshott of the Northern Territory parliament said: ‘Yay, this is wonderful, there is my big opportunity to rescue all of these downtrodden people’. Frankly, the member for Nelson made a great deal of political mileage out of it - and no doubt was genuine in the message he was trying to send to the residents of Sundowner. He has subsequently presided over, in his agreement with the Northern Territory government, a legislative instrument that has sat on the shelf for two years and not achieved at all what the member for Nelson said it was going to achieve.
Now, we find a legislative instrument in this House which is, essentially, a huge retreat from the position outlined in the original legislative instrument in this House. This retreat is, essentially, a complete capitulation to the original position that operated under the common law in the Northern Territory. Caravan parks are not subject to operation under the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act alone, so, the common law has tended to apply. As a consequence, the abandonment of this issue, essentially for two years until this date, demonstrates the common law - with possibly the exception of the Sundowner example, and I will return to that in a second - has operated perfectly well and to the satisfaction of the participants, both residents and owners, between that time and this.
We have a specific instance which has given rise to a legislative instrument which some people will claim created an injustice. Nothing prevented the residents of the Sundowner Caravan Park from scraping a few shekels together and seeking an injunction through the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory whilst they made their case. It is within the provisions of the common law to enable residents in long-term caravan parks -- and this has occurred in other jurisdictions - to argue that they have set down roots into a place that gives them a greater proprietoral existence than they would if they were mere transients. Evidence, then, would be taken from a court in relation to such an injunction and subsequent decision as to their rights, which would then examine those components of the arrangement between the caravan park owner and the resident as to whether or not they have put down some sort of roots.
That things would be done on a case-by-case basis. So, if a resident could walk into a court and argue they had put down roots because they had ripped the wheels off the caravan they had wheeled on to that site, put an awning there, grown plants around it, and made all of the decisions which would indicate a sense of permanency, it would give guidance to a court.
Equally so, a resident could well live in a caravan park for 20 years, but do everything that is necessary to demonstrate they were expecting to leave at any moment. If a resident maintained the caravan, its pressure in its tyres, ensured there were no awnings attached, etcetera, and lived like that for 20 years, a caravan park owner could well argue it was anticipated as it was always within the mind of that resident to be able to depart at any time.
Permanency may be established in a short period of time by virtue of the conduct of the resident and the caravan park owner, or permanency or temporariness may also extend over a long period of time by virtue of the conduct of the caravan park owner and the resident. These are things that should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. I suggest - but would not put words into the mouth of the court - the residents of the Sundowner Caravan Park could have made a substantial claim through a court to assert that they had engaged in permanency in the caravan park and had started to exert certain proprietoral rights. That was never tested and the argument will run: ‘It is always too expensive to have a court fight’.
However, the answer for government, and the member for Nelson, was to set up something more expensive, which are the administrative structures about managing a caravan park’s instrumentality. That was done. It was created and pushed through this House on the numbers. Everyone said it was going to be the rescue of the caravan park’s residents, except the owners hated it. Of course, every time government interferes with private business, it always does it to the detriment of the parties involved.
So, in an effort to protect the residents of caravan parks, the caravan park owners had to respond by starting to evict people within a particular period. All of a sudden, caravan park owners were saying: ‘We are going to have to move permanent residents on simply because we do not want to be captured by this legislative instrument’.
What we have here now is ‘the compromise’. I argue, for all the reasons I have outlined so far, the compromise is utterly unnecessary and, frankly, the status quo – that is, the common law position - should be maintained. Whilst that particular instance was upsetting for some people, the truth of the matter is that a caravan park, as a general principle, as a beginning assumption, asserts a certain amount of transitoriness in how it operates over the people who choose to live there. That assumption in favour of transitoriness can be defeated in the system I have just described but, nevertheless, it is, essentially, a transitory environment.
If I have read the current bill correctly - and I believe I have - that transitoriness exists with a simple concept: if someone sticks the sign ‘tourist park operator’ out the front of their caravan park, this bill ceases to effectively operate, returning you to the common law position and, moreover, defeating the common law assumption in favour of certain permanency when that permanency can be established. It now places permanent residents, where such a sign exists, in a less powerful position than they would have been under the common law processes.
The problem this side of the House has with this legislative instrument is it has simply failed to do what the member for Nelson and the government promised. Its predecessor has not come into operation. This compromise is little more than a face-saving exercise for both the member for Nelson and the government. They will argue all the good reasons this is good law and the member for Port Darwin will be putting words into their mouths. However, this is not what was promised to the residents of caravan parks and, frankly, one of the best things government can do in relation to the operation of business is get out of the way!
This is an example where we should simply get out of the way because we have loaded into this legislative instrument nothing more than a system which will create a bureaucracy which will have the effect of policing something that can be nullified by the erection of a simple sign.
We, on this side of the House, are underwhelmed that the legislative instrument is going to achieve anything other than something else a bureaucracy somewhere is going to have to maintain. The processes which were captured in this bill are not entirely unlike what is already ascribed to the common law. It places certain parameters and time frames on it, but that is about it. Frankly, it is a disappointing place we have come to, considering the fanfare and the noise made by both government and the member for Nelson when the original bill was brought to this House.
One of things people in the community are becoming irritated with is how the arrangement between the member for Nelson and the Northern Territory government is amounting to not much at all. If you go through the original agreement between the member for Nelson and government, all of which should have been put in place by now, so little has been achieved. The member for Nelson spends much time talking about the need for compromise and bipartisanship but, frankly, the compromise the member for Nelson has agreed to has enabled a government to stay in power through an agreement. Then, applying an approach of compromise the member for Nelson has applied, it has led to the agreement largely being shelved.
Yes, some elements of the agreement are in place such as container deposit legislation. We do not need to talk about how that has gone over in the public domain regarding its management and operation. However, other components simply have not operated. How many quarterly meetings have been held between the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Nelson, and the Chief Minister - one, two? I do not know. I spoke to the Leader of the Opposition this morning and he indicated just one. There are any number of other areas where this agreement has not been honoured - and it is has been to the detriment, according to the member for Nelson, of Territorians.
Vendor disclosure legislation is one. I am no great fan of the vendor disclosure legislation just quietly; I believe the system operates in the Northern Territory particularly well. However, when was that law gazetted? When did that law become operational in the Northern Territory? It was a core plank of the agreement and, yet, I cannot find a reference to the gazettal of the vendor disclosure legislation. Perhaps I can be corrected by the government on this particular issue.
The Humpty Doo district plan - have we seen that anywhere? The establishment of the city of Weddell - we have gone through a planning process, but nothing in relation to an establishment. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
The process of compromise, the member for Nelson would argue, is the process to good governance. So far, what I have seen through this process is the process for compromise has led to the government continuing to do as it pleases, without the member for Nelson effectively asserting any real results arising out of the agreement he has with government. The problem I have with this agreement is that, ultimately, it was never enforced - and never effectively enforced. The caravan parks legislation is just one more example of that.
We do not support this caravan park legislation, and we did not support it the last time around. It is just a way to interfere with good and proper businesses in the Northern Territory. I know the argument will come that these poor residents who choose to live in caravan parks because it is affordable, do not have the means to fight the fights they have to fight in relation to protecting their own interests, so we will establish a legislative instrument which means government will have to protect their interests. However, effectively, it still means they will, essentially, have fewer or no more rights, and the erection of a simple sign will deprive them of the rights they currently have.
Madam Speaker, this is not a good legislative instrument. I often think we pass way too much legislation in this House, simply to enable people to have a face-saving position. This looks, smells, tastes, and feels like a face-saving legislative instrument. If the member for Nelson wants to bring honesty into this House, he will make that admission, because this is a substantial departure from what he promised to the residents of the Sundowner Caravan Park two years ago.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Port Darwin for his views on this new legislation. To a large extent, I actually agree with him. We may, at another time and in another place, discuss the agreement. However, in relation to this particular matter, it is certainly different than the previous legislation.
We need to go back in history a little. Originally, this legislation was promised by the CLP government. It promised it would introduce it but, as time moved on, the CLP government was replaced and that legislation just did not happen.
Of course, there was the matter in relation to the Sundowner Caravan Park which, I should say, was not just about people who could only afford to live in caravan parks. If you had spoken to those people as I had, a number of those people were quite well off but preferred to live in caravan parks because they like that style of living.
I also ask why it is okay for people who live in flats, units, and houses and pay rent on those houses to have protection, and it is not all right for people who live in caravans. What is the distinction? We could argue it is the right of someone in business not to be interfered with by legislation, and those people own a whole block of flats. Why have any interference in that as well?
The member for Port Darwin, I understand, is far more advanced in matters relating to common law and all those sorts of things. I try to look at things as they are. Where people have been treated unjustly I believe it is appropriate that people speak up for them, regardless of where they live. People are protected under the Residential Tenancies Act and I have always felt people who live in caravans should also be protected.
So, we are where we are today. I tried to introduce the caravan park legislation some time back as standalone legislation and it was defeated. The government introduced its amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act and it passed. There was quite a lot of debate about whether there had been adequate consultation in the case of the legislation I brought forward. I travelled the length and breadth of the Territory talking to owners and distributing a survey form to tenants. The varying views of the tenants are one of the problems in this whole discussion; it varies from place to place. I was criticised by some tenants as rocking the boat as they were happy as they were. I suppose that is fine.
However, the case was there were people in Sundowner Caravan Park who were happy until they were kicked out and it was seen there was no protection. The member for Port Darwin said they could have taken them to court. I am not sure if you can get 65 people in a caravan park organised to do that, to be honest with you. They are very independent people. The member for Port Darwin might have been able to give some advice at that stage on how that could have been done, but it was certainly not an issue which was raised at the time.
I understand the government has introduced this legislation after a great deal of consultation with the caravan park industry, and they have travelled the length and the breadth and have had many meetings. I agree with the member for Port Darwin; this is certainly a watered down version of the original act. I suppose I see this also as an evolution in the way caravan parks will evolve in the Territory, as they have in other parts of Australia. There is legislation in other parts of Australia that protects long-term caravan park people. So, it is nothing new, but it is new for the Northern Territory. Obviously, there is some resistance to it. The government has at least gone around and renegotiated with caravan park owners.
There is no doubt this legislation will depend on the goodwill of caravan park owners otherwise, as the member for Port Darwin said, you can put a sign up - or you do not have to, because most of the people with long-term caravan park residents already have a sign up saying ‘tourist accommodation’. If you read clause 10 of the bill, it is clear that is what it is about. It says:
(1) This Act applies to a caravan park agreement, made on or after the commencement of this section, that specifies the period of the occupancy granted under the agreement is for the prescribed period or more.
(2) If it is intended that a person will occupy a caravan and caravan site, or a caravan site, in a caravan park under a caravan park agreement for a period less than the prescribed period ...
Which, as I said, is less than 12 months:
(3) If a caravan park is advertised as being for ‘holiday accommodation’ or ‘tourist accommodation’, Parts 2 to 16 do not apply to an agreement for an occupancy in the caravan park even if the period of the occupancy is for the prescribed period or more.
Some of these are common sense. It also says it says does not apply to persons who do not pay rent, or who do not pay rent in return for services provided, or part of an agreement looking after homeless, unemployed or disadvantaged persons, or family and friends paying a nominal rent, or in a moveable dwelling or mobile home not located in a caravan park.
If a caravan park owner does want to include Parts 2 to 15 of the act in a caravan park agreement, regardless of section 10(1) to (4), the owner can. The reality of this part of the legislation is it will depend, as I said, on the goodwill of the owner. If that owner recognises that people who live in a caravan park for more than the prescribed period - which is more than 12 months - should have some rights under the law, then they will be covered by a caravan park agreement. After all, those who rent a house or flat do, so why not people in caravan parks?
Of course, there has been some resistance from some caravan park owners, and it was fairly disgraceful that some caravan park owners put up their caravan park rates for long-term residents, even before the government’s original legislation was enacted. Of course, we know, as the member for Port Darwin said, the legislation was never enacted.
In the long term, I believe forward-thinking park owners will realise this legislation is not a threat, but a way of having a good relationship between long-term caravan park residents and management. After all, it is these long-term caravan park residents who keep most parks, mainly in the Top End, going especially during the Wet Season.
Yes, management can get around it by saying their park is a holiday park or holiday accommodation, or if a person only occupies a caravan for less than the prescribed period, which is less than 12 months, and renews that same caravan park agreement each year. However, as time goes by, residents staying longer than 12 months will be seen as an asset to the park and not just a Wet Season or off season source of income. I believe owners will see the benefits in the long term and, for those owners who wish to use the legislation to better their park in attracting those longer-term residents, they will now have the legislative backing to do so.
It should be noted that in the previous legislation 90 days would have been the prescribed period, and this has now been extended to 12 months. This is a change asked for by the industry. Hopefully, changes like that will mean that owners will consider treating residents not just on a year-by-year basis, but as longer-term residents with caravan park agreements as written in Part 3 of the act.
There are a number of changes which vary from the original bill the government introduced and appear to be reasonable, especially one that I was lobbied by owners for, which was the power of eviction, especially for violent behaviour. I notice, of course, that caravan park rules are also mentioned under section 139. I had a query as to why those park rules could not also be incorporated in the beginning of the act so they apply to anyone coming to the park. However, as I said, I believe this legislation will evolve with time and caravan parks in the Northern Territory will move into a different era and work in parallel with other caravan parks throughout Australia.
One of the reasons for pushing this legislation was when the residents of Sundowner Caravan Park in Berrimah, in December 2006, were told to get out with very little notice because the land had been sold and a shopping complex was going to be built on the site. They were given two weeks to get out, but thanks to some local lobbying and help from the then Chief Minister, the time was extended. I say to anyone who passes the old caravan park site, have a look at the sign that is up there announcing the opening of a new shopping complex. It has been there for five years and the land is still vacant. You really have to ask why those people were moved in the first place.
It is good to see the amendments introduced today giving some protection from eviction by adding clauses 177A, 177B and 177C. These amendments gives protection to residents who have lived at the park for more than five years, which means, according to the circumstances of section 102 or 103, there is a time between 42 days and three months before a person has to leave the park.
I hope caravan park owners will not see this legislation as something to avoid, but as a tool for lifting their park to a professional and respectful relationship with long-term residents. Through the agreement, it will mean the responsibilities of those residents and owners are clearly spelt out. This is very important, especially for long-term residents, many of whom regard living in caravan parks as living in their home - something I believe some politicians who have never spoken to the residents of long-term caravan parks do not understand or comprehend. Time will tell if this legislation does what it was intended to do, and if park owners take up the challenge of doing the right thing by their residents. If the legislation does need more teeth, then that should be looked at after, say, at least two years of operation, when it should be reviewed. I am interested to hear what residents have to say. I listen to what residents have to say and I hear the complaints. I hear nothing has been done and they have no rights to get any changes.
I am also interested, in light of the fact this bill has some ‘get out’ clauses, whether those caravan park owners put up their fees from long term to tourist rates in 2010 when the amendments to the Tenancy Bill were debated in parliament but never enacted. Would owners of those caravan parks now do the right thing and return those rates to what they were before? I do not know.
I thank the caravan park owners and the NT Caravan Park Association for their assistance in putting this legislation together. Also, the Department of Justice staff who travelled all over the Territory talking to the caravan park industry.
Madam Speaker, yes, it is not the legislation originally put forward to this parliament. However, I sometimes think you have to have a touch of reality as well. Even if that legislation had gone forward previously, you could get around it. I spoke to quite a few caravan park owners who said exactly that. If you are going to introduce legislation - and I probably learn as I go along - you have to bring the people the legislation is to affect with you.
This legislation, even though it may not achieve all the things I want it to, at least is a start because, before that, we had nothing - absolutely nothing. At least we have something now and we can work on it. I hope the government continues to look at the plight of people in caravan parks. With the cost of living, the cost of housing, the cost of land, there is more pressure on people to look for caravan parks as an option to live, and they should be entitled to some protection.
I am certainly happy to talk to caravan park owners as this legislation unfolds. I have a good relationship with caravan park owners. Even if I had my barnies with a couple of them, we are still on talking terms. That is part of the debate you have when you are dealing with legislation that affects them.
I have a number of caravan parks in my electorate and it is important there is a growing recognition that those people should be given at least some protection - not no protection. The amendments introduced today in parliament are the very amendments which were needed when Sundowner closed down. They, at least, say to the owner of the park they must give people a certain amount of time to get out of the caravan park. You have to remember, at Sundowner, there were people who had lived there, in some cases, for 15 years. People had quite substantial annexes and gardens, and for them to just pack up in two weeks was an impossibility. It was very difficult for those people to find places. Eventually, most people did, but they needed that extra time. At least the amendments brought forward today will do that.
The member for Port Darwin spoke about the agreement I have with the Chief Minister. It does not mean an agreement 100% on every particular part of that agreement; it never has, and it probably never will. Certain things in that agreement are still being worked on. There are some things I am not particularly happy with either; however, if I was to bark every time there was something I did not quite get, we would not get anywhere.
Undoubtedly, there are some issues that still need to be …
Mr Elferink: Some!
Mr WOOD: There are some issues that still need to be addressed. Well, if you would like me to go through the agreement in a debate one day we might do that. However, I do not have the agreement in front of me and I do not intend to talk off the top of my head about matters I have not been prepared to talk about today.
I came here to talk about the caravan park legislation. It is an important evolution in the way caravan parks will be run in the Northern Territory. For many years, caravan parks have operated as back yard industry-type facilities. There were caravan parks in Nightcliff and other suburbs. The Sundowner and the Overlander would not have been regarded as 5-star caravan park facilities, but they were facilities which were needed because people needed to find a place to live. I have a caravan park in the middle of my electorate, on Wallaby Holtze Road, which you certainly would not give a 5-star accreditation to. However, the people who live there are people who cannot afford anything better than what is there. It is an important place, and those people also need protection from being evicted at short notice. Many of them would have no other place to go.
If I get knocked for believing that one should stick up for people and I only do it for political purposes, well, I will let other people make that judgment. However, I hope I can stand here occasionally, as another human being, and say people who are under threat from being evicted from a home is not a political matter, it is a human rights issue. That is the reason I stood up for the people in the Sundowner Caravan Park: it was the right thing to do.
Sundowner Caravan Park is not in my electorate anymore. What is left of it is in the member for Fong Lim’s electorate. In fact, of the people who moved, a number of them now live in the Summer Institute of Linguistics’ property, which is also still in the Fong Lim electorate. They were grateful, at that time, that Mr Anictomatis allowed those people to move into that area; there were some facilities for them. However, there were other people who really struggled to find accommodation. That was worth fighting for.
If this legislation has failings, it does not have a failing when it comes to the section that has been brought in today about the eviction time. I believe that is a really important part.
Yes, I believe the legislation does fail, in some ways, to achieve what it originally set out to do. However, I do not think that would have been achievable because I know, through talking to caravan park owners, they already had their way around that previous legislation. This legislation, at least, has been developed in conjunction with talking to those caravan park owners and the NT Caravan Park Association. As I said, those caravan park owners could see the benefit of retaining long-term caravan park residents; that a good relationship between themselves and those residents can be achieved using the good things that are in this legislation. I believe they will take that on.
Certainly, it only covers a minority of the people who visit caravan parks, but it is an important minority. Instead of making judgments today about whether it will be effective or not, we need to make those judgments over time. As I said, I am sure this legislation will be reviewed, and I am certain it will be amended if necessary. As much as it certainly does not go down the path of an enforceable agreement, at least it sets the foundations for both residents and caravan park owners so they know if they do set up one of these agreements, it is clear they see the responsibility is on both sides, and that is a good thing in itself.
Madam Speaker, I support the legislation. I hope the government will review it, and will continue discussions with caravan park owners and the NT Caravan Park Association. They have set up a good rapport with them now, and they need to work with them, also bearing in mind they should keep in contact with residents. I say again that I know residents, in some cases, who are scared to complain about the standard of roads, trees, or long grass in their park because they are scared of being evicted. We should also ensure, in any future discussions on this legislation, we try to, at least, get a sampling of what residents in the parks think so we can get a good cross-section of the views. Let us hope this legislation then can be developed and improved, and make our parks a better place for long-term people to live.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I would not mind saying a couple of words on this legislation.
First, how wonderful it was to hear from the member for Nelson on this issue. It is something he is passionate about and has fought hard for. I believe it is fair to say he is the Don Quixote of the Northern Territory parliament, riding in here on his white horse, complete with lance and shiny silver armour, fighting those windmills. He is out there finding problems that do not exist, meanwhile ignoring the plight of a majority of Territorians.
It was interesting to hear the member for Port Darwin calling him the Rob Oakeshott of the Northern Territory parliament. I do not believe there is a title more fitting – he is the Rob Oakeshott of this parliament: a happy-go-lucky character with bizarre, zany ideas on which the government pegs its hopes of staying in power.
He summed it up here. He said he understands this legislation will not work, that it will need reforms and reviews, but he is on a crusade and he is going to drive this through the parliament, using his power and the agreement he has with the Chief Minister - the king maker - to get in and help many people who actually do not have a problem. Great to see, member for Nelson. It is too bad you are so misguided.
It might be of interest to members of this place: I lived in a caravan park for a while. I was 18 years old and spent six months living in a caravan park with a bunch of my mates. We did it to save money at the time, and it was a good experience. We knew at any stage, at the drop of a hat, we could be kicked out. That is the nature of living in a caravan park. You understand you are there on a temporary basis, that you are living from day-to-day on the right to be there. Of course, if the caravan park owners go bust or the business is sold, everything is up in the air; you do not know whether you will be moved out. That is just a fact of life.
It is like living on a block of land where you have a Power and Water Corporation easement going through the back of your block of land. You can sit there, in some cases, for 15, 20 or 30 years and nothing happens. However, you always have it in the back of your mind that one day Power and Water might come in with their excavator and dig a great big hole in the back of your block, and you are powerless to do anything about it. That is just a reality.
That is what you know before you go into a caravan park: that you are there on a temporary basis. Trying to give caravan park people some type of permanent hold over a site, irrespective of market conditions and of the strength or failure of the business where you are renting a site, I believe is just absolute lunacy.
It shows how crazy the member for Nelson can be. It shows how quixotic he is, and it shows why the comparison with Rob Oakeshott is so fair. The fact is, if the member for Nelson was concerned about the cost of living pressures on people who live in caravan parks, and the price of rents people pay in caravan parks, he might actually start advocating for more caravan parks ...
Mr Wood: I have.
Mr TOLLNER: I believe we need more caravan parks. He is sitting there saying he has tried to push for more caravan parks in the Northern Territory. Well, in that regard, he has been a complete failure. Whilst the government will sit here and nod along - and I do not see a great deal of enthusiasm, by the way, coming from the government for this legislation. I do not see half-a-dozen speakers ready to jump to support the quixotic member for Nelson. They are doing this out of reluctance because they know this is the price of a deal which the member for Nelson did - the Rob Oakeshott of the Northern Territory parliament - with the Chief Minister.
That is why they are sitting there, nodding along and saying: ‘Okay, reluctantly we will support this piece of lunacy. We will support trying to mess things up’. The fact of the matter is, he should get out there and push this government to create more caravan parks around the community. However, the member for Nelson said he does not bark every time he does not get what he wants. Well, ain’t that a fact! He does not bark every time he does not get what he wants.
He wanted the Howard Springs Nature Park fixed up. It is an absolute war zone out there at the moment; a scorched earth policy has been applied at Howard Springs. The place is a disgusting mess. I used to get out there quite regularly with my kids years ago ...
Mr Wood: When did you last go out there?
Mr TOLLNER: Well, the last time I was there was a couple of months ago, member for Nelson. I noticed a complete lack of rainforest around the place. It looks like someone went a bit loony and had an acid trip while he was driving a D10 bulldozer. Goodness me! The place is an absolute wreck.
He has himself a brand spanking new $1bn prison going into his back yard. He does not seem to see a problem with that. In fact, he started off this term saying he was opposed to a new prison; that we could make do with what we currently have. But, because he will not bark every time he does not get something that he wants, the Chief Minister and the government decide, oh no, hang on, we will build this new prison ...
Mr KNIGHT: A point of order, Madam Speaker! We are talking about the caravan park legislation, not the ...
Mr TOLLNER: Absolutely, we are talking about it. We are talking about the failure of the member for Nelson ...
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim! Order! Standing Order 62, if you can come to the point of the bill, please.
Mr TOLLNER: I am coming to the point, Madam Speaker. This is wholly relevant to this bill, because the driving thing behind the bill is the quixotic nature of the member for Nelson. On one hand he says: ‘Oh no, we do not want a new prison’, but, then all of a sudden, he has some sort of epiphany …
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! He said a number of times I never wanted a new prison. That is incorrect.
Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.
Mr TOLLNER: No, it is not a point of order, Madam Speaker. He does want a new prison now. In actual fact, he wants it in his back yard.
The fact is, he had some concerns about an INPEX workers’ camp, but now he has that coming into his back yard. I am curious to know what the good citizens of the Nelson electorate think about the added congestion and traffic problems. Here is a fellow who comes into this place and says: ‘Oh no, you cannot subdivide below five acres’, but he is quite happy to have a 2500-man workers’ camp in his back yard, and a $1bn prison sitting in his back yard, clogging up the highways and roads of the Nelson electorate. This guy is beyond the pale.
He comes in here, two years after introducing this legislation into the parliament. There has not been a problem the whole way through but, now, he is back on his happy horse, on his white charger, all geared up, he has the lance out, he has the shiny armour on, and he is coming in here tilting at windmills. The guy is completely off the planet.
This is bizarre legislation. Surely, the parliament has better things to do with its time than sit here and determine legislation where legislation is not required.
Goodness me! Step out of your doorway, member for Nelson. Get out and have a look at the number of crimes and the amount of antisocial behaviour going on across the Northern Territory. Maybe take a bit of interest in that. Maybe take a bit of interest in your own constituents, when you promised almost four years ago they would have a swimming pool. Tell me, member for Nelson, where the hole is that they are going to put this swimming pool in. We have heard uphill and down dale from the member for Nelson about his great plans and what he has delivered for his electorate. They have a swimming pool going out there somewhere in the Northern Territory - it is non-existent. There is no swimming pool even on the horizon. It is just bizarre.
The member for Nelson has been a complete and utter failure in this term of government ...
Mr Wood: You have water on the brain.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Nelson!
Mr TOLLNER: I am wondering how long this guy can sit behind me and interject ...
Mr Wood: Well, you do the same thing.
Mr KNIGHT: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Clearly, the member for Fong Lim is failing to talk about the legislation. If you could draw your attention, member for Fong Lim, to the legislation – let us debate the legislation.
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker! It would not be unreasonable for a member of parliament to not only debate the legislation but also the motives for bringing that legislation before the House. It is not unreasonable for the motives to be examined, or at least postulated upon, by a member.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, if you can come to the point of the legislation. I refer you to Standing Order 67. I have given you a fair bit of leeway in this, and you may continue to have a level of leeway.
Member for Nelson, if you could try to contain yourself, please. It is difficult. I have called order a number of times; however, because the member for Fong Lim is so tall I cannot catch your eye.
Mr Wood: I have a problem with fairy tales, Madam Speaker. I do not believe them.
Madam SPEAKER: That is fine. Member for Fong Lim, if you can come to the point of the legislation, please.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, the fairytale of Don Quixote is quite apt in this case because we have the member for Nelson behind us - the Rob Oakeshott of the Territory parliament – figuratively, sitting on his white charger in his shiny armour, resplendent with lance, taking battle to a bunch of windmills; that is, in this legislation we have the member for Nelson pushing some agenda for a problem which does not exist.
A problem occurred two years ago at the Sundowner Caravan Park - the place was sold and a new person came in and said: ‘We do not want to operate a caravan park; we want to have a shopping centre’. People were given two week’s notice. I feel sorry for those people who were given two week’s notice, but anyone living in a caravan park knows that, at any time, you can be given two week’s notice to get out - whether you have been there for five minutes, five years, or 50 years. That is the reality of life in a caravan park.
I have lived in a caravan park and understood at the time we were completely susceptible to the whims of commercial life and of the owner of the caravan park as to whether you were there or not. Trying to entrench some type of entitlement on to caravan park owners, in this case, is wrong. I do not have people coming and knocking at my door saying: ‘Oh, we are going to support the member for Nelson’s legislation because people all over Darwin are getting done over by a bunch of evil caravan park owners’. No, it does not exist. This is crazy legislation.
The member for Daly is going to have to jump here and talk on this. It will be interesting to hear him say why he supports it, how good it is going to be for the Territory. However, for the life of me, I cannot see a reason why we would be sitting here debating this legislation when there are so many other important matters we should be turning our attention to.
For instance, the crime, antisocial behaviour, and lawlessness going on across the Northern Territory, or the fact we are a largely undeveloped economy and we need to create new opportunities for more people we want to move here. There is a whole range of things - our education system is an absolute shambles and the health system is a shambles. The government is completely led by those in Canberra, who have shown they are a complete shambles.
Are we concerning ourselves with that? No. The member for Nelson concerns himself with a problem that does not exist. He is completely quixotic. He has gone around the bend. I cannot understand why he would not save everyone time and say: ‘Let us pull this nonsense off the Notice Paper, I got it wrong’. He seemed to think he got it wrong with speed limits when he campaigned heavily to get rid of the speed limits this government put on our open highways. He changed his mind on that very quickly, doing a complete backflip, going from the leader of the campaign to abolish speed limits to being one of its greatest supporters. He did the same with prisons, where he supported keeping Berrimah prison exactly where it was and maintaining it and putting some work into it. He did an absolute backflip on that. He has done a backflip on his swimming pool idea in the rural area, because the swimming pool is non-existent, and we have not heard boo from him about that. He has done a backflip on saying he is going to try to fix roads and congestion in the rural area, because we now have a $1bn prison going into his back yard, and a 2500 man workers’ camp.
Goodness me! He readily says he does not bark every time he does not get what he wants. Well, the fact is, he never barks; he never does anything. He has delivered absolutely nought, zero, zilch, for his electorate. He has delivered nothing. Now, he is coming in here trying to beef himself up with this legislation ...
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Repetition, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order in relation to this, member for Nelson. However, member for Fong Lim, I remind you of Standing Order 67. I have allowed you a lot of leeway in this debate. If you can come back to the actual bill before us, please.
Mr TOLLNER: Absolutely, I am speaking about this bill! Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I am speaking absolutely about this bill because this bill, as I said, is a dog of a bill. The only reason we have the member for Nelson in here is because he has recognised he is a complete failure in all of these other areas. Now, he trots this nonsense in here, stands up and carries on like he understands; it is going to need reviews, it is going to have to be reformed, and it is going to have to be tinkered with.
Goodness gracious me! There is not a problem out there we are dealing with. Why do you introduce unnecessary legislation and, then, say in the same breath: ‘I know we have certain aspects of this wrong and we are going to have to review it, and we are going to have to reform it. We will have to change it’ ...
Mr Wood: I did not introduce it.
Mr TOLLNER: Goodness me. Behind me, he interjects that he did not introduce it ...
Mr Wood: It is the first time you have listened.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: The fact is, he drove this legislation right from the word go and, as much as he interjects and prevaricates, as much as he does not like anyone calling any attention to all of the failures - the string of failures he has left in his wake ...
Mr Wood: You are a failure!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: Goodness me! He jumps up and down, carries on like a pork chop and says: ‘We cannot talk about this and we cannot talk about that. Please do not draw attention to this; let us talk about the legislation’. Well, the legislation is like everything else he has ever done: it is a failure – it is an absolute failure!
Madam Speaker, I am not going to go on any longer. I thought it was worthwhile to say that this legislation is useless, the member for Nelson is well branded as the Rob Oakeshott of the Northern Territory parliament, and he is the Don Quixote of this parliament …
Mr Wood interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: … but he has absolutely done nothing for his electorate ...
Mr Wood interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: He has done nothing to stand up to this government in any way. He said he does not bark. Well, he said nothing truer there; he does not bark about anything. Now, he is coming in here masquerading that the government has put this up; that somehow or other, this is some idea of the government and he has had nothing to do with it. Goodness me! He realises that the thing is a dog; he is already trying to offload responsibility for it. He is doing everything he can to push the responsibility on to the government. He is doing everything he can to say: ‘No, government supports this, government supports this’. Well, government has been dragged to the table on this one ...
Mr Wood interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: Government has been dragged to the table. I believe government, to tell you the honest truth, is too lazy to bother doing anything to reform any industry. To have to reform an industry where there is not a problem is a bit of a problem for the government.
It would be a bit of a problem if the opposition was in government too. I have to tell you, we have a legislative agenda; we have things to do. The last thing we want to be doing is doing things where they do not need fixing. Like they say: ‘If it ain’t broke don’t fix it’. That is the exact fact of this situation we are talking about today.
Mr KNIGHT (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I was delighted to hear that contribution from the member for Fong Lim because it showed a few things. One is his ignorance of the credibility the member for Nelson has in his own electorate. I know the current member for Fong Lim ran for the seat of Nelson in – 1997, was it? I know he still does not like the Labor Party because we preferenced the Country Liberal Party before we preferenced him, and our preferences would probably have got him across the line as an Independent. He greatly touts how badly the Independents perform, but he sought to become an Independent in the very seat held by the current member for Nelson, which he holds quite successfully.
I put the challenge out for the member for Fong Lim, a betting man: I will put $1000 up that the member for Nelson retains his seat because of his popularity. I hope the betting man from Fong Lim takes me up on that offer. I know the popularity of the member for Nelson. He works very hard, understands his electorate, and also does his job. He has certainly represented the interests of the former residents of the Sundowner Caravan Park, and also the people of the rural area. Many things in the rural area are out of the member for Nelson’s control. The member for Fong Lim’s contribution also showed desperation.
Fortunately, member for Nelson, it looks like it might be your day today because there is desperation and lack of leadership on the other side of the House, and the lack of any policies. We are five months out from an election and there are no policies on the other side because they just have no ideas. They know the Labor government is dominating the policy agenda, dominating where the community wants to go. The Country Liberal Party has no policies, so what do they do?
They lack leadership on the other side of the House. The member for Blain is just vacant from that space; you never hear him. He asks two or three questions in Question Time, sits back down and everyone takes over. Last week was abysmal on the other side of the House ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr KNIGHT: What happens is the leadership of the member for Blain just crumbles and, then, the member for Fong Lim jumps up like he is now ...
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Attorney-General was quite quick to jump up on his feet several times and call points of orders on relevance. Maybe he might want to take a few of his own pills and get a bit of relevance about this bill.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, resume your seat. Minister, I remind you ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Minister, if you can make your closing speech.
Mr KNIGHT: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The summing up is about the contributions that members have made, and I am summing up on the contribution made by the member for Fong Lim. What happens after the crumbling of the leadership of the member from Blain, is the member for Fong Lim steps up to the plate ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Consistent with the Attorney-General’s own observations, the member for Fong Lim never mentioned the member for Blain. Just tell him to get on with his job.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, resume your seat. Minister, if you can come to the point of the bill in your summing up.
Mr KNIGHT: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As some latitude was afforded the member for Fong Lim, I am just moving in that area ...
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, if you can just come to the point of the bill, please.
Members interjecting.
Mr KNIGHT: Back to the contribution of the member for Fong Lim. He has talked about everything other than this legislation. He talked about the member for Nelson. It is just desperation on his part because he knows the absolute abysmal performance of the Leader of the Opposition last week and over the weekend and, presumably, through this week. He has stepped up to the plate and is trying to take some leadership, which he should because he is the leader on the other side of the House.
I agree with the member for Nelson: he is more like Tony Windsor, who is a discerning, hard-working, local member. He might look like Rob Oakeshott, but he has a different manner about him. I was delighted to hear the contribution from the member for Fong Lim, because it is really showing what is going on, on the other side of the House.
I thank members for their contribution. It is a problem in our community with this kind of ad hoc nature with caravan parks, which has all been on a handshake, just a nod, or whatever. It is a real problem. I agree with the member for Nelson that this is an evolution. It is putting in a foundation of some understandings and basic rights, and that is what it does. It is something which has been much needed.
The CLP talked about doing it, so they understood it was much needed. With what happened with the Sundowner, it really came to the fore. I congratulate the member for Nelson for his travels. Correct me if I am wrong, I do not think any member in the opposition has travelled as extensively as the member for Nelson or DoJ departmental staff, who have been right down the track. They have met with the operators and the residents and really gauged their views, one-on-one, face-to-face, about how they feel. From my understanding, there is not a great deal of conflict between the operators and the local long-term residents; they get on, but it is all very much ad hoc. There are some good relationships and there are certainly some benefits that can be afforded from both parties having that relationship.
It has reached this point in time where there needs to be some clear understanding so, if you go into these parks, here is what you have and, if you want to operate a park, here is what you have. That is what this legislation does. I agree with the member for Nelson, it will be an evolution - the evolution and the maturity of this particular market. In America, you see these van parks. That is a long way down the track, but that has been an evolution of what has been happening over there. You see a more advanced and more mature evolution down south, where you have van parks which are very much permanent and rights are afforded. There has been a market failure here.
The member for Fong Lim asked why not just open up more caravan parks? That is up to the market. The government can give the tick on the licence - no worries, go ahead; the zoning - no worries. However, it is the market which determines that. The member for Port Darwin talked about getting out of the way of the market. Well, the market has failed in this regard; in the further development of permanent caravan parks. I believe, as a standalone facility, it is probably marginal. You have a lot of money tied up in the land, in the reticulation of power, water and sewerage through these facilities, and I ...
Mr Tollner: Maybe you are the Rob Oakeshott of the Territory.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr KNIGHT: There are a few people you might be too, member for Fong Lim.
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim!
Mr KNIGHT: It is a marginal business. The way the economy and the market is at the moment, it has to be a mix. However, we need to ensure those long-term residents, and also the operators, are afforded some rights. This legislation is making it very clear on what you are getting yourself in for and what your rights are. They may be minimal, but you know what they are, and you make some decisions about the way you live and what sort of back-up plans you have if you get asked to leave or you do not get your tenancy renewed.
Madam Speaker, the new regulatory framework will benefit long-term residents and the park operators, as well as people in general. It will provide a level of security and certainty in relation to long-term caravan park agreements which has never existed in the Northern Territory before. It certainly is a step forward. The new provisions are, essentially, important in the current economic climate where we have rising costs across Australia.
We are not alone in the Northern Territory with housing affordability, the take-up in the resources industry. We are some 50 000 homes across Australia short in being constructed each year, with high migration rates, high numbers of workers going to resource projects, and a high birth rates as well. It is certainly a time in the history of Australia where housing affordability is growing because demand is increasing, but supply is reduced. It is one of our key objectives in Territory 2030 to offer affordable and appropriate housing for Territorians.
Long-term caravan park residents and caravan park operators will now, generally, have the same rights and obligations as tenants and landlords.
The 2012 legislation differs from legislation developed in 2010 in that it clearly accepts that caravan park operators can make a clear business decision to focus on short-term accommodation. There have been some comparisons with flats and things like that. If you have some holiday apartments – surely, if you go into a holiday apartment you do not expect it to be there for five, 10, or 15 years, and you do not expect to be given some decent notice to move out. There is a clear decision by the operator of that facility, it being a solid building, that they are offering short-term accommodation. Within this legislation that is a clear decision as well, and people are made aware of it. Government accepts this could be understood to allow operators to get around the legislation. However, it is always possible to avoid being subject to this legislation by simply not providing that particular service.
Clearly, goodwill is a major component of this legislation. It has been a very difficult process to go though because you are getting into some very murky, uncertain range of situations, and a range of caravan parks across the Northern Territory.
In wrapping up, I acknowledge the work which has occurred with departmental officers, and I will name them. I thank Robert Bradshaw, Alastair Shields and Marianne Conaty who did the big road trip, as did the member for Nelson. They travelled down the track to Katherine with three caravan parks, Tennant Creek with two caravan, and to Alice Springs where there are several caravan parks. They also visited the Darwin region and rural area. Dougie Barden came forward, which was quite interesting I am sure. There are also in those in-between areas such as Wycliffe Well and Barrow Creek. They made a huge effort to get out there, and this has been respected by the caravan park industry and, I am sure, the long-term residents, some of whom are in very vulnerable positions. You do not sit in a caravan for 15 years - probably a very inexpensive caravan 15 years ago. Some people are in their 60s and 70s on very basic incomes and are very vulnerable. The operators have some goodwill for these people. This is a good start, a good foundation, and a good awareness for both operators and tenants to move forward.
Madam Speaker, I thank all members for their contribution, and I look forward to the committee stage amendments where we shall make some changes.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Madam SPEAKER: While we are waiting for the Chairman of Committees, honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of the Years 7, 8, and 9 Sanderson Middle School students, accompanied by Mr Bill Simpson, Mr Ben Johns, and Ms Julya Cai. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
In committee:
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, the committee has before it the Caravan Parks Bill 2012 (Serial 190), together with schedule of amendments No 72 circulated by the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General, Mr Knight.
Is it the wish of the committee that clauses 1 and 2 be taken together?
Mr ELFERINK: I have some more general questions, Madam Chair. I am wondering if now would be an appropriate time to pursue those, or whether you want to wait until such time as we get to the amendments? They are more general questions about the bill, as a whole. I will take your guidance.
Madam CHAIR: Member for Port Darwin, if you wish to ask those general questions now.
Mr ELFERINK: If that suits the minister?
Mr KNIGHT: I do not mind.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay, thank you. My first question in relation to the bill only just popped into my head when you were speaking and describing the process that was gone through in relation to drafting this, and the former bill as well. Can you advise this House how much that whole exercise has cost, from the day the first bill was announced to the stage we find ourselves now, including staff wages, the cost to Parliamentary Counsel, and those sorts of things?
Mr KNIGHT: Obviously, I do not have those figures with me. The cost to Parliamentary Counsel would be the normal cost for us to get other legislation drafted, or the opposition to get legislation drafted. Some legislation is easier and more of a desktop exercise, I assume, and involve stakeholders which are local, meaning Darwin. However, for this exercise, the workload reflects the type of legislation and the stakeholders involved, in that we are dealing with caravan parks in the stretch from Darwin to Alice Springs and, I assume, down to Kulgera as well. Face-to-face meetings were required. Where possible, much of the circulation of this material happened electronically. I do not have that cost. It has been done the correct way, whatever it cost.
Mr ELFERINK: I appreciate that; it was not an attempt to trap you. However, it leads me to make some observations. The observations are simply that if you allow for the drafting of the original legislative instrument it took – what? - five or six hours to get through the House the first time at – what? - $10 000 an hour? Or what is the going rate now - $8000 an hour? - to run this joint? Then, you have all the staff who have been involved, such as legislative draftsmen. One would presume the total cost - if you include travelling allowance for some fairly senior people such as Alastair Shields et al, their wages, that sort of thing - of this exercise will have costs upwards of $250 000, if you include all of those things. Would the minister say that was an unreasonable figure or not?
Dr Burns: No, it is not comparable to what has been wasted on statehood through the CLP’s opposition - $800 000.
Madam CHAIR: Order!
Mr KNIGHT: We had quite a bipartisan approach to the statehood process …
Mr Elferink: That is not the question I am asking. You can ignore the dill at your side.
Mr KNIGHT: … and that cost almost $1m. That was wasted on the floor of this parliament by the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Fong Lim having a leadership battle. It was open civil war over there. I was here witnessing it …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Chair!
Mr KNIGHT: I am still speaking …
Madam CHAIR: Please pause. What is your point of order, member for Port Darwin?
Mr ELFERINK: I thought it would have been self-evident of relevance. I do not particularly need to hear about his opinions on leadership matters he may have of this side of the House. I just wanted to ask him what he thought the cost of this whole policy has been. I was asking whether $250 000 would be a fair price tag. If he is unable to answer the question, he can say so.
Madam CHAIR: Thank you, member for Port Darwin. The Attorney-General is endeavouring to answer that question. Attorney-General, come to the point, please.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, we do not have a figure on that. Obviously, we can talk about the opposition’s Government Business Day today, and about how much time it is going to suck up of the day and what all that costs. If you want to start costing things, we are happy to cost the opposition’s legislation and their matters in the House and what the opposition does. We do not have a figure on that. It is normal, it is reasonable and I thank the officers for the work they did. They did it responsibly. I believe the industry has been very appreciative of the work undertaken.
As the member for Johnston said, it is the price of democracy and of doing it properly. I hope the member for Port Darwin would not like us to do this on the cheap, or do it inappropriately. I am sure that would be levelled as a criticism. I know that it was only this side of the House and the member for Nelson who made the effort to get out to see these people who are not in Darwin, who perhaps will not come to meetings or will not get on the Internet. They need to be spoken to face-to-face, one-on-one a lot of the time. I thank the officers for doing that work. It is reasonable and we thank them.
Mr ELFERINK: That is the longest ‘I do not know’ in history, but that is fine. Thank you for your contribution, minister. Why was the original legislative instrument never gazetted?
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, the earlier bill, basically, was thought to be workable and, as time moved on, it was not. That was a genuine attempt to get it right. The CLP had the opportunity and stated it was intending to do something with this legislation. It never did. So, from our part, it was a genuine opportunity to try to solve a very complex problem, and try to have a balanced position on it. The first cut of it did not look like it was going to work. We did not jam it in there. We genuinely looked at it again and started working with the parties to try to get something that was going to be workable.
As I alluded to in the final parts of my summing up, it is about goodwill from the operators and the tenants to do the right thing. That is, at the end of day, where it is going to come to. So, at this point, this legislation, this amendment, shows we can get to a point where everyone is comfortable and it certainly becomes a very good start. I know the NT Caravan Park Association has been very appreciative about the openness and the willingness from the government to find a landing point they can be comfortable with. I believe this does it. Today, we have support from the NT Caravan Park Association and from the tenants, and it is now very much workable.
Mr ELFERINK: Some observations, Madam Chair, in relation to the comments made by the Attorney-General. This is not about goodwill. If goodwill was operating in any environment then there would be no requirement for any form of legislative interference. Moreover, if goodwill was involved in these processes and the contracts between tenants and owners of caravan parks, there would be no requirement for any form of parliamentary or judicial interference because it would be sorted out.
I heard the member for Nelson, and now I have heard the Attorney-General, refer to goodwill as being one of the guiding principles of this legislative instrument. The reason these legislative instruments are introduced is to create an environment which will deal with problems when goodwill fails. The argument that goodwill should run its course through these legislative instruments is basically to argue that you should have a love-in and that legislative instruments should just capture the love-in mood. That is not what legislative instruments are for, and it is not what courts are for. Courts and legislative instruments seek to resolve issues where the parties can no longer resolve the issues amongst themselves.
I am disappointed to hear that the government thinks that a legislative instrument is a mechanism by which goodwill can be enforced. A legislative instrument is this body imposing its will on the parties involved in one of these disputes. When a dispute has occurred, whilst people may be civil, goodwill implies a spirit of cooperation. A dispute is a result of a failure of the cooperative spirit and, whilst people may still seem to negotiate and will apply rules to themselves, it is not sensible to argue that any legislative instrument is an extension of goodwill and, moreover, can enforce goodwill. Goodwill is as much a human emotion as it is a moral conduct, but you cannot legislatively establish it as a principle of law.
You can certainly look at bona fides and interpret the conduct of a person from a legal point of view, but you cannot enforce it. It is like when you see these comments in the Native Title Act, that there needs to be good faith negotiations, and all that ever occurs in those environments is that the negotiations are either held in good faith or not. If they are held in good faith, then sometimes things are resolved and there is no dispute to bring before a court.
However, you cannot, as the Attorney-General, seriously assert that we are going to create this legislative instrument but, after that, everybody is just going to have a love-in and it is going to be perfect. That is not why we are here, and it is not what this legislative instrument should be about.
This legislative instrument seeks to establish rights from competing proprietoral interests. The problem with a legislative instrument is that - and I have said this before in this House - it is like trying to cast a net into the future and catch one type of fish. I argue - and this is what I argued in the second reading response - that it is inappropriate to take that approach. You may well have a caravan resident - and we will get to this issue shortly when it comes to your definition of a long-term occupant – who prepares themselves, even after 20 years, by registering their caravan and making sure the tyres are pumped up to leave at any moment, then they cannot, in any logical sense, be seen to be a permanent resident.
Nevertheless, a resident of one year who allows the registration to expire on the vehicle, pulls his wheels off the caravan, and starts to put annexes, awnings and build gardens around a caravan, may well create - particularly when that occurs with the permission of the caravan park owner - a proprietoral interest in the land in a period much less than five years.
Surely, the sensible approach to take, minister - and I seek your advice on this - in such circumstances is, rather than an arbitrary declaration by this House - when we do not know and cannot possibly know the nature of the disputes which will arise into the future - and giving definition to what is and is not a long-term residence, the evidence on each particular instance should be taken.
That was a question.
Dr Burns: It was an observation.
Mr ELFERINK: No, it was a question.
Dr Burns: You said it was an observation.
Mr ELFERINK: All right. As I said, I seek advice from the minister as to why he thinks he can apply an arbitrary definition of long-term resident when he cannot know the nature of the disputes which will occur into the future.
Mr KNIGHT: You could say that about any legislation. We are trying to provide some definition to it. We are trying to enact legislation which identifies the likely problems which will come up, and provide some clarity to those. This is what all legislation does; it actually puts some definitions in place. People might not agree with them. In all legislation, I am sure there is particular dispute over one particular case versus another; that is why we have our tribunals and our courts to arbitrate on that. This is no different than other legislation where we put definitions and penalties, and the rules and regulations in place. This is no different to any other legislation.
Mr ELFERINK: That makes my point for me because the government has introduced the commercial tenancies act, the Residential Tenancies Act, now the caravan parks tenancies act - for lack of better words. None of those had legislative environments prior to the those enactments, yet tenancies occurred for hundreds of years - in fact, I suggest for as long as human beings have had contractual arrangements with each other. Those disputes have gone through the courts. The question I ask for a Residential Tenancies Act, a commercial tenancies act, and this act is the same question every time: why is it necessary?
Mr KNIGHT: You are ignoring the fact there are a large number of disputes. We had a market failure and, generally, the community supported the view that the people of the Sundowner Caravan Park where treated unfairly. If you have been there for 10 or 15 years and are given two weeks to put the tyres back on the caravan, get it registered, and all of those things that are required, it is unreasonable.
You are ignoring the fact with this legislation, and other legislation, there has been market failure, and governments from both sides of the spectrum have had to step in. Whether you agree with it or not, you, we get calls from all those different interest groups when the market fails, when they feel they have lost their rights or there is a dispute where there is no clarity within legislation.
No one likes rules, whether you are a little kid or a business owner. However, we also want some fairness and some clarity. That is what legislation does, and that is why we bring legislation into this parliament and why we have the courts as well.
Mr ELFERINK: This is where you and I fundamentally differ. You assert there are no rules that surround the operations of these arrangements between contracting parties in the case of a lease - or an implied lease, if you like. Those rules are well-established and long existing in law and protected by law long before legislative instruments were passed. The question I ask is why - and it is the philosophical discussion we are having - would we step away from a long-established system simply because of a single incident - which is a huge potential drain to the public purse - when those rules are already in existence?
In your second reading reply you referred to the current arrangements – that is, the common law arrangements - are in some way nebulous. They are hardly nebulous, they are well-established. These disputes go back quite some way. On a case-for-case basis, those courts have been able to deal with those issues as a matter of fact. In fact, you have just said to this House if there is a dispute arising out of this legislation where does it go? It goes to a court for decision.
What have we achieved? In the current process – that is, the common law - if there is a dispute it goes to a court for a decision. Your answer is if there is a dispute about this legislation it goes to a court for a decision. What is the advantage in the legislation? A couple of arbitrary rules to determine who is a long-term resident, and who is not? The figure you are going to put on it is five years. However, on a case-by-case basis, that diminishes the capacity and the rights of the players involved. It does not advance it because the effect is it is just an arbitrary number and it takes into no consideration other components.
Yes, I know the courts are often an expensive process. However, the truth is if the residents of Sundowner Caravan Park had got together and some of the more well-off members - as described by the member for Nelson, there were people well off - they could have sought an injunction to prevent the evictions. That injunction could have been in place for as long as necessary to determine the case - a much longer period than the two weeks described. Government would not have had to have been involved, nor would this parliament. Moreover, it sounds as if the only person who came up with a solution was a completely different third party by the name of John Anictomatis.
Nothing in a legislative instrument advances the cause for a case-for-case assessment which the common law enables. This carte blanche process of simply throwing a blanket forward actually represents a limitation on a court; it does not advance the court’s perceptions. If you want to comment on that, you are welcome to, but that is, basically, my concern with this instrument.
Mr KNIGHT: What we have here today is a landing point which satisfies the operators of these parks …
Mr Elferink: No, it does not.
Mr KNIGHT: It satisfies the operators, the owners, and the tenants. It provides some very basic and foundational rights for these parks. It will evolve over time. The work that has gone on with the department and other people into this process has us to this landing point, and it provides guidance for the courts. What we have here is a very contemporary situation, and a balanced and settled position which will, obviously, guide the courts in determining any disputes in the future.
Mr ELFERINK: Guidance from us - the courts love that; they really adore parliamentary guidance. I am always fascinated when the argument gets trotted out: ‘Oh, well, the courts do not know what they are doing, they need guidance from the parliament’. The fact is the courts know full well what they are doing and they have 800 years of property law to rely on to guide them. I suspect there is nothing we can achieve in a pamphlet about that thick, drawn up by a draftsman, which is going to add to their capacity to consider these issues. It is a nonsensical argument and, frankly, I do not accept it.
What I am disappointed about is it is just the first thing we always do, as parliamentarians. We have a legislative instrument for every occasion. Hell! We passed the last legislative instrument with a long fight in this House and, then, it sat in abeyance.
The argument was run by the members on this side of the House that the last instrument was not going to work. ‘No’, we were assured, ‘of course it is going to work’. Then, all of a sudden, ‘Oh hell, it does not work’. Your own admission that it was unworkable - I think that is the word you used - demonstrates it was unworkable. So, it bothers me that, all of a sudden, we have come to a position where we have a workable form which, basically, retreats almost to the point of the common law, but not quite. In the meantime, we have let the common law do it anyhow - completely, uninterrupted, unabated, and unfettered by the opinions of this parliament.
I heard you also say: ‘Well, the industry wants this’ Yes, I am sure the industry does, because it is a much better thing than they currently have. However, I have also spoken to a few in the industry who would just like to let the whole thing go away and the common law to continue to operate, as they have always operated. It would suit the industry well for government to get out of their environment.
That is why I have said in this place, during my second reading debate, that this is nothing more than a retreat position to say: ‘Well, we have done something’. It is because we have tried to interfere in a process of - if you like, for lack of a better expression - land management which is, by its very nature, so transitory that it resists legislative interference. When we have tried to interfere, we have created a nightmare. Now, we are just doing the retreat to a point where we are just saying: ‘Oh, well, we will just tuck in a few rules here and there, guarantee a bit of security for this person and that person, and everything will be sweetness and light’.
All you are really doing, in any practical sense, is slightly extending the eviction period. That is, ultimately, what this legislative instrument can offer. In the process, bureaucracy has to exist around it to police it, including the tribunal. That is the tragedy of this approach. It is a general criticism of what we do as parliamentarians. It is a case of, as I think the member for Fong Lim said: ‘If it ain’t broke, you don’t need to fix it’.
Mr KNIGHT: I am delighted to hear from the shadow Attorney-General with respect to interfering in the courts, and let the courts decide. I hope this continues throughout this election year with respect to sentencing.
Mr Elferink: Ah, good. I am glad you have me there. Thank you, finally.
Mr KNIGHT: I am sure we will be having a mandatory sentencing debate. The belief that that is the way the opposition is going to go seems to fly in the face of what you just said; of letting the courts deal with these problems and leaving it up to them to balance the case in front of them with the penalties they have at their disposal. So, it is getting mixed up there.
It gets back to the goodwill ...
Mr Elferink: No, it does not!
Mr KNIGHT: Let me finish. The landing point we have here is a landing point where there was goodwill. With the previous legislation, we had caravan operators saying: ‘We are going to get around this’, because there was a lack of will. That is what the fundamental theme through the legislation is; that we have balance there. That is what is occurring here. This is a very good landing point. The only people who are critical of this legislation are the opposition members. We have the industry and the community and this side of the House on board with this. It is only you sitting outside the tent with respect to getting some very basic fundamentals and basic rights understood here.
Mr ELFERINK: The bill of rights for caravan park residents – that is what this is about. It, basically, does not protect many rights at all, other than the extension of an eviction period. That is the problem; the courts could do better than that.
I pick up - it took you long enough to get there, by the way - about the argument with sentencing practices. I am happy to have that debate about the sentencing practices of the courts any time. What gives the courts credibility is not the decisions they make, so much as the public support for them. In the past, the courts have, in relation to these property disputes, showered themselves in credibility with reasonable and workable outcomes which, in the instance of many long-term residents who have put down roots in caravan parks, have gone beyond in their decisions what this legislation offers. For that reason, their integrity is protected.
When it comes to the other matter of sentencing, the public opinion of the courts is somewhat different than in relation to the settlement of property disputes. That is why we have a parliament. It is a little like joining dots for you; that occasionally parliaments do interfere. The question the parliament has to ask itself is: should it interfere in this point? Particularly when you do not introduce, essentially, any effective protection through the legislative instrument that you bring before this House - and no such protection is being created.
You can continue to say that industry supports this. What you have done is taken the industry to a point, which they really despised and, because of the best will in the world, all of a sudden the very people you were trying to protect through the haste with which this legislation was introduced originally, were exposed to a response from the industry which everyone suddenly got frightened about: ‘Oh, my goodness, they are going to evict everyone.’
All of a sudden, there is the retreat to this position. Of course the industry is happy because they do not want to be over there either. I can tell you where they would rather be – not interfered with. That is the problem with this type of legislation; it just interferes with the operation of the businesses of the Northern Territory.
Clauses 1 and 2, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 3:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 72.1, which inserts the new main objective in clause 3 of the bill making provision for long-term occupants of caravan parks in the new Part 15A of the bill.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 72.1. This amendment inserts two new definitions for the change date and long-term occupant, and references clauses 177A(4) and 177A in Part 15A of the bill respectively. This technical amendment is necessary in order to make provision for long-term occupants of caravan parks.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Chair, what is the definition of a long-term occupant?
Mr KNIGHT: Five years, member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: Sorry?
Mr KNIGHT: Five years.
Mr ELFERINK: Five years, that is it.
Mr KNIGHT: Yes.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay. Are there any other conditions which apply to a long-term occupant other than the five-year cut-off date, or is that just an arbitrary date?
Mr KNIGHT: Part 15A, member for Port Darwin …
Mr Elferink: Looking at it now.
Mr KNIGHT: Sorry?
Mr Elferink: Just looking at it now.
Mr KNIGHT: Yes, just referring to it. A long-term occupant is:
(1) A person is a long term occupant if the person is a party to an arrangement under which he or she has resided in a caravan park for more than 5 years.
Mr ELFERINK: That is fine. That is what I expected as the answer.
If a person keeps their caravan registered, makes no effort to develop the site for a period of five years, makes sure their tyres are pumped up to 32 psi, and they can leave at any time and is at that site for five years and one day, are they a long-term occupant?
Mr KNIGHT: The definition only includes the five-year term. If they are there for five years, no matter what they do with their tyres, they are a long-term resident.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay. If a person who removes the tyres, lets the registration of the van lapse, grows trees around the caravan. puts an awning on the side of the caravan, and then says to anyone listening that they love being there and they are expecting to spend the rest of their days there, but is there for a period of four years, 364 days, are they a long-term occupant?
Mr KNIGHT: The legislation says no. It is very clear for both that person who has taken the tyres off their caravan that five years is the definition for a long-term occupant.
Mr ELFERINK: You can see my problem though, can you not? You can see the issue I am trying to raise here. It is such an arbitrary figure, no matter what evidence a court may deduce that suggests that a person’s intention is to be there long term, or to suggest that a person’s intention was to only be there for a short term, the arbitrary figure of five years - that is, four years and 365 days - is it. That is the only thing you will now allow a court to turn its attention to when determining long-term occupancy. Is that correct?
Mr KNIGHT: That is the landing point we have arrived at. That has been done in consultation. You have a lot of four-year contracts out there. With major projects, you have a lot of government contracts even, or private sector contracts, which are four years. It is a point they landed on. It could have been four, it could have been six. Well, it was not; that is where they arrived at. That provides the guidance for the occupants and for the operator alike.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, the problem is it also removes any form of discretion on the part of the person making the determination, no matter what evidence is available. That is my concern. I am not going to bang on about it, but I think you take the point that evidence to deduce permanency or otherwise should be a product of the facts, not simply an arbitrary determination. Arbitrary determinations, which found its way into the original bill in this House, are the arbitrary determinations which made the original legislation unworkable and unjust. Now, the potential is for the same unjustness and unworkability to work its way into - well, more the unjustness than the unworkability. The unjustness complained about in the first legislative instrument will now percolate its way into this legislative instrument simply because you are unable – and, frankly, the member for Nelson and government, are unable and unwilling - to abandon this for the system that has worked for such a long time up until this point.
Mr KNIGHT: The use of ‘arbitrary’ and ‘unjust’ with respect to a legislative instrument such as this is interesting because that is where we are going with mandatory sentencing - is it not? - where legislation puts an ...
Mr Elferink: If you want to accuse us of mandatory sentencing, please do.
Mr KNIGHT: ... arbitrary figure in there. You are saying in this case it is unfair, but when you propose your mandatory sentencing or whatever it might be, that is somehow appropriate. You are having it both ways here, member for Port Darwin. I will get a copy of this Hansard, keep it, and you will hear from it quite often in this next six months because you have just given an example where you believe it is inappropriate, unjust, unworkable, and an arbitrary penalty. I look forward to that debate.
Mr ELFERINK: As I explained before, it has to do with the fact people trust the courts when it comes to property disputes. They have less comfort in the area of sentencing regimes, but that as an aside.
The point is, you have a system which works, which is not broadly complained about, and was not used or turned to by any of the residents in the Sundowner Caravan Park. You are prepared, on the basis of that one incident, to turn the whole thing on his head, create new legislative instruments, abandon new legislative instruments, allow the original system to operate unfettered for two years and, then, come in with a capitulation, essentially. The only thing you can touch on is: ‘We have a new definition of long-term resident, everybody suck it up’. What a waste of time!
Mr KNIGHT: I will answer that and throw to the member for Nelson. We support and are providing some protection for the owners and for the tenants. I know the opposition does not want to do that, but that is where we differ. We support some rights and some clarity around this. This cannot go on for very much longer. The former CLP government realised that and was, presumably, stating it was going to move that way but did not. It has been recognised by your side of the House under a previous government, and this side of the House, and the Independent member for Nelson, that there needs to be some clarity around this. It is much welcomed, but that is where we differ. We want to provide some protection, some clarity to the operators and for tenants into the future.
Mr WOOD: I will say something regarding the comment ‘it did not need fixing’. I disagree and that is why these amendments are here. The Sundowner was not the only caravan park closed down. The Overlander, which was the park in front, was closed down and those people never had a chance; it happened so quickly. I spoke to some of those people and they cried out for help and did not get it.
Sundowner people, luckily, were able to get some help from the previous Chief Minister, me, and from people in other caravan parks who allowed them some time to get out of the Sundowner Caravan Park.
Sometimes, you have to go back in history. Sundowner was an old caravan park where people were well-established. However, they had no protection. There has been no protection for people living in caravan parks except, what the member for Port Darwin keeps talking about: common law. Many of those people would not know what common law is and they would not know how to access that law. They would expect the government to have rules and regulations, as they do down south where people who are permanently living in caravan parks are protected.
What is the role of government? Does it step outside its role and put everything in the hands of the courts? I hope it does not because, as members of parliament, we have some responsibility for those who are weakest, and those people who are least able to afford other options when it comes to redressing some injustices. It was unjust that the owner of the land - whether it was the future or the existing owner of the land - told people they had two weeks to leave.
Sometimes, people can make judgments in this House without getting their hands dirty. How many people visited the Sundowner Caravan Park? How many people looked at the sites in the Sundown Caravan Park? How many people spoke to residents of the caravan park? How many people tested whether these people could actually leave in two weeks - physically remove annexes and caravans that had been sitting there up to 15 years - and ask them where would they find another place to live?
Are we part of the old industrial revolution in here at times? We chuck people on the street just because businesses say they should be chucked out because they have no rights. I cannot believe some of the statements I hear; that businesses should be able to do what they like.
There are two sides to the equation. When someone pays money to go to a caravan park, they initiate a contract. The contract is they also expect to get fair treatment. The owner also expects to get fair treatment. If that does not occur, then you need some rules and regulations to ensure it does. If some people have problems with that - too bad!
As I said, this legislation is not perfect. It is better than none, and none is what we would get if the CLP had its way - and none I cannot accept. As time goes on, it is fair to say we have at least set the parameters to which caravan park agreements can operate. There are at least limitations on what the owner of the caravan park can do in relation to kicking someone out. Surely, that is not unfair legislation? To me, it is unjust that someone gets thrown out just because someone decides to sell the land.
No one is saying they cannot sell the land; no one is saying they cannot close their caravan park down -they have every right to do that. However, the other side of the equation, when you pay money to go into a caravan park, is that contract which says you should be treated fairly and justly. This legislation makes that happen.
I feel ashamed that people think the only rights are the rights of business. Of course, businesses have rights and I fully understand that. However, we are not talking about making chocolates, socks, or whatever here, we are talking about dealing with human lives living in a caravan park. It is a lot more serious than some of those other industries we might be talking about.
Madam Chair, the idea that there is nothing wrong, there was nothing that needed fixing, is incorrect. The member for Port Darwin might say this act relies on goodwill - it does. It does because the original legislation proposed was that caravan park owners, or some at least, who did not want it had found a way around it. What were we going to do? Has anyone given a solution to how we would fix that? There probably was not a solution.
I was talking to someone from the real estate industry in the foyer. You can do that with real estate as well. If you want to find a way of escaping some of the clauses in the Residential Tenancy Act, you will find ways around it. Everyone can find loopholes in laws and find ways around it. I would rather have something in place than nothing at all. It sends out a message that the government believes caravan park residents need some protection. It may not give them the protection I had hoped it would give them, but we need to keep talking to caravan park owners. The relationship with government and the Caravan Park Association of the Northern Territory is something that should be valued.
As time goes on, I believe more people will take up these caravan park agreements. That is the way a professional caravan park will operate in the Northern Territory in the future. They will move in the same line as many caravan park operators do down south: they have some relationship with their long-term residents, and that is usually in the form of some legislation.
I do not agree with the member for Port Darwin. This clause which deals with the long-term occupancy, which relates to another clause, section 177A, has to have a date on it. Otherwise, what do you do? Of course, someone can argue you have four years and 364 days and, therefore, you are not counted. You hope, of course, the caravan park operators have a feeling for the people living in their caravan park. You cannot legislate totally, but you hope that caravan park operators will also accept that there will be times when the legislation is so prescriptive that they could argue the case: ‘Well, I can kick you out’. However, I hope caravan park owners would have more humanity than that - and I believe they would - and would give those people sufficient time to remove themselves from the caravan park.
Madam Chair, I support these amendments.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 to 9, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Debate suspended.
Continued from earlier this day.
In committee:
Members interjecting.
Madam CHAIR: Order! Member for Greatorex! Member for Arafura!
Members interjecting.
Madam CHAIR: Order! Member for Greatorex! Member for Arafura! Member for Greatorex, you are on a warning!
Honourable members, we resume the Committee of the Whole.
Clause 10:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 72.3. This amendment replaces the application for Parts 2 to 16 of the bill in respect to clauses 10(2) to (6) with the application of Parts 2 to 15 of the bill in respect of clauses 10(2) to (6). This technical amendment is necessary in order to make provision for long-term occupants of caravan parks.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 72.4. This amendment replaces the application for Parts 2 to 16 of the bill in respect of clause 11(2) with the application of Parts 2 to 15 of the bill in respect of clause 11(2). This technical amendment is necessary in order to make provision for the long-term occupants of caravan parks.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 12 to 26, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 27:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 72.5. This amendment is required to correct a minor reference error.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 72.6. This amendment is required to allow for variations to standard form agreements.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 72.7. This amendment replaces the current clause 27(4), and requires that the commissioner or the court may have regard to the way in which a term, specified under this legislation, is a term of the caravan park agreement provided for by a standard form for caravan park agreement.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 28 to 103, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 104:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 72.8. This amendment to clause 104(3)(b) corrects the notice period applicable in the case of termination of an employment-related tenancy. As currently drafted, clause 104(3)(b) prescribes a notice period of one day, and it is proposed to replace this with a notice period of 14 days.
Mr ELFERINK: Just quickly, why?
Mr KNIGHT: This reflects the Residential Tenancies Act and it was a reference error.
Mr ELFERINK: I am sorry; can you explain a ‘reference error’?
Mr KNIGHT: When it was originally drafted, there was a one-day notice period. What we are doing here is referencing off the current entitlement within the Residential Tenancies Act, section 91, which gives 14 days, so it was basically a referencing error.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay, so why did you choose one day in the first instance?
Mr KNIGHT: I am advised this was an error with drafting and it has been corrected with these amendments.
Mr ELFERINK: All right, I appreciate that, but that just makes my point that this stuff is hurried - was hurried the first time round, and continues to be hurried now. The fact that you are introducing whole wads of amendments to this legislative instrument belies the fact that this legislative instrument is hurried. I just place on the record my concern that your haste will, again, find us at some point in the near future back in this House re-amending the amended act that we are amending today.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 104, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 105 to 165, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 166:
Mr KNIGHT: I move amendment 72.9. This amendment seeks to replace the terminology ‘authorised officer’ with ‘authorised person’ in clause 166(3) which sets out the powers and requirements when the commissioner wants to inspect properties. This is a minor technical amendment in line with the contemporary drafting practice.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr KNIGHT: I move amendment 72.10. This is one more amendment to clause 166. This amendment relates to amendment 72.9 and replaces a definition ‘authorised officer, means the officer’ with ‘authorised person, means the person’. Again, this is picking up on the previous amendment by changing the definition wording.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 166, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 167 to 177, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
New Part 15A and new clauses 177A, 177B, and 177C:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 72.11. This amendment inserts after clause 177 a new Part 15A into the bill and provides for the application of the legislation to long-term residents. By way of summary, proposed clauses 177A, 177B and 177C provide the determination provisions of the bill will apply to persons who have been in continuous occupation or paid rent for at least five years. The main protection would be persons with a periodic occupancy - for example, those where there is no fixed end date - are entitled, after five years of occupancy, to a three-month notice for the need to vacate the site.
Also, the five-year period includes periods before the commencement of the legislation. This means that persons who have currently been in a park for a period of five years will immediately gain the protection of the termination provisions of the bill.
Last, the period in which notice of determination for a long-term fixed occupancy is extended from 21 to 42 days. This does not extend the term of the occupancy, rather it provides for a much longer period of notice being required.
Mr ELFERINK: Do these amended sections operate where an operator, in accordance with the rest of the legislation, places a sign out the front that says ‘tourist accommodation’?
Mr KNIGHT: This is the new part which, basically, provides for the longer-term tenancies.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes. I will ask the question again. Which is the superior part of the legislative instrument, this part, or the part where somebody sticks a sign out the front that says ‘tourist accommodation’? Does it have the effect of nullifying this section, either directly, or by way of excuse should a person be charged?
Mr KNIGHT: It is not in this part of the legislation – Part 15A.
Mr ELFERINK: Sorry, could you say that again? I did not hear you.
Mr KNIGHT: You are asking about the signage - whether the caravan park is a holiday short-term accommodation or a long stay. That is not the case, it is not in this Part 15A.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, it is not in this Part 15A. How do the two parts operate, or do they not operate with each other? Can you explain to me how they may work?
Without being able to lay my hands on the section, there is, essentially, a defence component created in this legislative instrument which says if you whack a sign saying ‘tourist park’ out the front, then it nullifies the operation of this act. What I am asking is: is this nullified - that is, the definition of long-term occupant - by the operation of the exercise of that other part of the act?
Mr KNIGHT: Thank you, member for Port Darwin, interesting observation. The advice I have is the special entitlements for the persons who have been there for five years, and the retrospective nature of it, overrides that provision which you are alluding to about the short stay and long stay.
Mr ELFERINK: Can you just point out the provision to me so I can jog my own memory in relation to this? Just what section number are we talking about?
Mr KNIGHT: For the short stay and long stay?
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, for the one that says, basically, the sign has the effect of nullifying the operation of this act - or words to that effect. I know it is in there; I remember reading it.
Mr KNIGHT: Is it Part 1, Division 3, section 10(3), Application of Act?
Mr ELFERINK: Sorry, what is it? What is your section number? It is easier.
Mr KNIGHT: Section 10(3), Application of Act:
Mr ELFERINK: All right, Parts 2 to 16 do not apply. Does Part 15A fall within the range of Parts 2 to 16?
Mr KNIGHT: Say that again, sorry.
Mr ELFERINK: You are introducing Part 15A. What did you say? Parts 2 to 16 do not apply. Is that correct?
Mr KNIGHT: Do not apply to an agreement.
Mr ELFERINK: What section are you quoting from, just quickly?
Mr KNIGHT: Section 10(3).
Mr ELFERINK: Section 10(3) - that is what I was looking for. Okay, that is what I thought. I will ask the question again now we have settled on section 10(3) ...
Mr KNIGHT: Sorry, I will just correct that. What I just quoted from was the original act and, yes, amendment 72.3 changes it from Parts 2 to 16 to Parts 2 to 15 to take into account that.
Mr ELFERINK: Ah right, so ...
Mr KNIGHT: Good pick up anyway.
Mr ELFERINK: This arrived on the Leader of the Opposition’s desk yesterday, so I am winging it as bit, as you can appreciate. Right. Oh yes, look at that. Thank you very much.
New Part 15A and new clauses 177A, 177B, and 177C agreed to.
Clauses 178 to 180, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 181:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 72.12. This amendment includes an additional regulatory-making power in respect of how Parts 10, 14, 15 and 16 of the bill apply to long-term occupants.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 181, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole, and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
Mr KNIGHT (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table the interstate study travel report pursuant to paragraph 3.14 of the Remuneration Tribunal No 1 of 2011 for the member for Macdonnell.
Continued from 29 March 2011.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, as Chair of the Sessional Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development Committee, I was pleased to table the report on the committee’s inquiry into the Northern Territory’s capacity to progress agricultural production in an environmentally sustainable manner.
The committee concluded that the Northern Territory has a substantial capacity to progress the development of environmentally sustainable agriculture. The committee acknowledged the Territory’s natural resources are finite and there are natural limitations to the extent of that development. However, the committee found there is a great deal of potential to continue to progress environmentally sustainable agriculture. The committee found that some of that potential is being realised, yet there is emerging and untapped potential which needs more support through greater investment in research, road and transport infrastructure, and release from legislative constraints in order to develop. The committee found there is more that the Northern Territory can do, and the recommendations made by the committee in this report are aimed at further strengthening the Northern Territory’s capacity.
The inquiry’s terms of reference asked the committee to examine a broad range of aspects related to the Territory’s capacity to progress environmentally sustainable development. In line with the terms of reference, the committee examined the relevant environmental issues, opportunities and constraints, best practice agricultural production, best ways to support the development of environmentally sustainable agriculture in the Northern Territory, relevant scientific research that relates to the Territory’s capacity to progress environmentally sustainable agriculture, and current and possible future contributions of agricultural-based products to the Northern Territory economy, including employment and enterprise development for Indigenous people in remote and regional areas.
Given the broad scope of the inquiry’s terms of reference, the committee agreed to focus on the mechanisms for promoting sustainable agriculture into the future, and so it did not examine the extent to which current or previous agricultural practices are sustainable. The committee’s considerations were underpinned by the principles of ecologically sustainable development which are about:
1. decision-making that integrates long-term and short-term economic environmental, social and equitable considerations;
The committee agreed to focus on the role and responsibilities of government, as well as the tools and mechanisms available to government to build industry capacity and progress environmentally-sustainable agriculture in the Territory.
The committee received four written submissions in response to its call for submissions from:
1. the Department of Regional Development, Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources;
The committee held six public hearings and heard from representatives from a range of agriculture and related organisations in the Territory, including the Northern Territory Horticultural Association; the Northern Territory Agricultural Association; Centrefarm Aboriginal Horticultural Ltd; the Environmental Protection Authority NT; the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association; and the relevant areas within Northern Territory government agencies, including the Arid Zone Research Institute.
The committee learnt a great deal from written submissions and public hearings about agriculture in the Northern Territory and the management of our natural resources in relation to agriculture. The committee was pleased to hear about the activities which demonstrate the capacity of the Northern Territory to progress environmentally-sustainable agriculture, the positive initiatives where potential is being realised, and the projects supported by industry and government working together towards strengthening the Territory’s capacity to progress environmentally sustainable agriculture.
It was fitting I tabled the report in Alice Springs because the committee heard much about the potential being realised, and still to be achieved, in environmentally sustainable agriculture in Central Australia, despite the environmental challenges of the region. The committee found that it is within these limitations that opportunities must be found to develop sustainable agriculture in the Northern Territory. With improved understanding of the environment and production techniques there is room for development within these limits.
Agriculture already makes a significant contribution to the Northern Territory by providing food, jobs and export income. The industry contributes around 2% of the state product, employs 2% to 3% of the Territory’s workforce, as well as the flow-on contributions through spending and participation in the wider community. Agriculture in the Territory is a developing industry. In 2000, agriculture produced $250m. In 2009-10, the combined production of agriculture, forestry, and fisheries was approximately $548m. In the past five years, horticulture alone has grown by 13.6% to $99.3m.
Despite the growth, there remains significant potential to increase the Territory’s agriculture production through both improved use of the land already under production and increasing the area of land under production. However, increasing the number of cattle on existing grazing land, putting more land into production, or increasing the number and variety of suitable plants grown is not sustainable without improved production techniques and better management and use of existing natural resources.
The committee found the potential for further development of agriculture in the Northern Territory is dependent on:
(1) sustainability and capacity of natural resources;
(2) industry willingness and capacity;
(3) market and economic drivers;
(4) government support for the industry and the market drivers; and
(5) sound environmental management, including the management of invasive species and their impact on agriculture.
Relatively very little of the Northern Territory is under production or is likely to be in the future. In fact, less than 1% of the Northern Territory land mass is cleared. The environmental resources of the Northern Territory are largely intact. However, a key message from industry representatives was that a major constraint to progressing environmentally sustainable agriculture in the Territory is the absence of a complete picture of the extent of suitable land and water resources which can be developed sustainably for future agricultural production.
The committee heard work to fill this crucial knowledge gap is being conducted. The committee believes it is important this work is finalised as soon as possible to allow for planning and development of the industry, along with best practice management of these important environmental resources.
Recommendation 4, therefore, asks that the government provide the necessary resources to NRETAS to complete capability assessments and an audit and mapping of land and water suitable for long-term sustainable food production as soon as possible. In conjunction with this information must be a thorough understanding of the environment, including climate, soil, water and their relationship and interactions at the ecosystem level. We also need knowledge of best-practice techniques for the sustainable production appropriate for the environmental conditions of the Territory. Naturally, water and soil management were particular issues of concern.
The committee found there is a great deal of work being done by industry and government to improve management of environmental resources relied upon by agriculture. The production of the NT Sustainable Land Use Guidelines is one good example. These guidelines have been written to provide agriculturalists and land managers with ways to self-assess their current practices against agriculture and environmental best practice. The guidelines are also designed to direct users in developing environment management plans for their enterprises, and towards achieving accreditation for their produce as environmentally sustainable.
There are numerous examples of government work being done to improve water management. One example is the development of water allocation plans to manage the sharing of water for human and environmental needs. Water allocation plans have been completed for the Ti Tree region and Tindal limestone aquifers in Katherine, and plans are being developed for Western Davenport around the Ali Curung region, Mataranka, the Oolloo aquifer in the Daly region, and the Darwin rural area in Howard Springs and Berry Springs.
Other work includes: the management of saltwater intrusion into the Mary River system; the development of water strategies for the sustainability of water resources in Central Australia and on the Tiwi Islands; NRETAS has been working with an agricultural producer in Katherine to harvest and store rainwater in an aquifer as the river levels begin to fall and flood peaks move down the system, while minimising adverse impacts on environmental flows; and the CSIRO and Power and Water have been recharging treated water into the Alice Springs aquifer which is showing an unexpected result in the slower than predicted recharge rate, giving the water more time to be cleansed before it reaches the aquifer. Once the level of recharge has been determined as sufficient, the department of Resources and AZRI will test the use of the water through agricultural projects.
The committee received a great deal of information about the limitations of water resources for intense development and the importance of managing water resources wisely. That the Northern Territory has in place a policy that 80% of available water must be used for the maintenance of water dependent ecosystems recognises the importance of surface water management for environmental health.
The mistakes of southern states in the management of river systems must not be made here. The committee learnt that the Living Rivers Strategy intends to provide a plan for the future management of rivers in the Northern Territory which balances environmental sustainability with economic development. Once complete, the strategy will form part of an overarching Northern Territory government framework for the development of sustainable agriculture in the Northern Territory. Recommendation 3, therefore, asks the Northern Territory government to complete and release its Living River Strategy as soon as possible.
There is also work going into improving soil management; for example, the Arid Zone Research Institute’s work with seven Indigenous pastoral properties in Central Australia in collaboration with the Central Land Council and the Indigenous Land Corporation to restore, replace, and install new infrastructure such as fencelines, dams, and watering areas to help control soil erosion and provide assistance to properties which are just establishing. The Arid Zone Research Institute is also conducting trials on soil carbon and nutrient dynamics.
A solid research base provides necessary evidence to encourage and support the uptake of more sustainable practices. The result and evidence of any research must be communicated effectively to producers and other environmental managers. Strong links between researchers and producers will ensure the researcher’s target and producers are well informed to make management choices which progress sustainable agriculture.
The committee was informed about a proposal being developed by the Northern Territory Horticultural Association, with the relevant Northern Territory government departments, to development the Northern Territory research capacity by bringing together existing research farms, stations, and centres to focus on the research and development of sustainable farming systems in wet/dry tropics under the Cooperative Research Centre, or CRC, or similar collaboration.
The CRC would cover north Australia and include expertise from Western Australia, Queensland, and the Northern Territory, to promote an integrated and collaborative approach to sustainability, and work in direct partnership with governments and their agencies in the implementation of their framework for sustainable development. The CRC would also be able to use its knowledge of wet/dry tropics to assist developing countries with food production and environmental management.
The establishment of the CRC is in keeping with the Territory 2030 target to build or further develop a number of major centres of research and teaching. Recommendation 5, therefore, asks the government to complete the proposal guidelines to progress the establishment of a north Australian cooperative research centre for an environmentally sustainable development as soon as possible.
Recommendation 6 extends Recommendation 5 by asking that the government develop a five- to 10-year research strategy which identifies research and development priorities to strengthen the Territory’s capacity to progress environmentally sustainable agriculture in the Territory. The strategy must align with national research and development priorities for rural research and development, and connect directly to the work of the proposed north Australian cooperative research centre for environmentally sustainable development of the region.
Another important message the committee received was the need for an improved legislative framework. Although the committee found that the Northern Territory has the full complement of necessary legislation to support the progress of environmentally sustainable agriculture, industry comments were received about impediments arising in existing legislation to realising that potential and its capacity to progress sustainable agriculture in the Northern Territory. The Pastoral Land Act restrictions on diversification into off-farm or off-property enterprises were identified as hindering development, efficiency, and good risk management.
Opportunities could be achieved from the reallocation of the boundaries and allowances made for leaseholders to restructure boundaries to amalgamate or cooperate better with neighbouring properties for more efficient use of resources. The Northern Territory Horticultural Association gave the example of the cattle station in Alice Springs where a piece of land was given an exemption from the act to grow table grapes, and the property has successfully and profitably grown table grapes for many years.
The committee was told that under the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act the principles of management of feral animal conflict with the idea of sustainable use. Commercial use has to contribute to define management goals and be one of the tools to help with mitigation. Feral camels proposed as stock animals for commercial gain must be managed to reduce their adverse impact on the environment, human settlement, and agriculture. If they become a stock animal then they must be herded, fenced, and managed in a similar way to cattle.
The committee acknowledges that balancing competing principles is an ongoing challenge, and compromises must be made between competing and changing needs, preventing environmental damage and allowing for growth and development. The committee believes the review of relevant laws needs to be completed as soon as possible to enable suitable opportunities for environmentally sustainable agriculture to be realised. Recommendation 12, therefore, asks the government to complete and implement its review of the Pastoral Land Act as soon as possible, with a view to removing any inappropriate restrictions on diversifying the use of pastoral land.
Another important message the committee received was the requirement for the provision of better infrastructure, particularly roads. Industry representatives identified the adequacy and quality of roads, transport, and related infrastructure as a key limiting factor to progressing development of agriculture in the Northern Territory. The degradation of existing roads in recent years, particularly the unsealed roads for multiple users including mining, the community, and the increase of activity from the NT National Emergency Response was identified, as well as the need to upgrade roads and transport infrastructure to ensure Wet Season access to key markets such as Indonesia. Recommendation 13, therefore, asks the government to release and implement its plan for rural roads and highways as a matter of priority to help the agriculture industry reach existing markets more efficiently and to grow.
Another recurring message during the inquiry was the need for more encouragement through investment to enable opportunities to be realised. The committee was told the influence of political and corporate time frames and long-term investment in the industry do not match agricultural cycles for return, which need around a 10-year investment to take advantage of complete seasonal cycles. Government needs to support the industry with investment in infrastructure such as roads, transport, and energy. In particular, infrastructure is needed to access its markets, such as the live export market such of Southeast Asia. Recommendation 16, therefore, asks the government to continue to encourage investment in the Northern Territory’s agricultural industry by, among other things, maintaining a commitment to the maintenance and development of necessary transport infrastructure.
The committee was asked to consider whether agriculture and agriculture-based products could provide employment and enterprise development opportunities for Indigenous people in remote and regional communities. Despite there being capable soils and resources on Indigenous land that can be used for food production for those communities, a number of constraints and challenges were identified as possibly hindering development of agricultural enterprises on Aboriginal land. A range of questions was raised around the form of agricultural production possible on Aboriginal land, the education, infrastructure and investment needed to realise those possibilities, and whether agricultural production was the most appropriate use of the land. As well, there are political and legislative issues that pose a number of challenges for the development of those enterprises for Aboriginal people.
These include the legislative requirement for Aboriginal people to act collectively to develop businesses on Indigenous-held land may be discouraging individuals from developing business ideas, and legislative restrictions that require complex resource management plans for wild harvests of plant products. Government and industry recognise that further development of agricultural enterprises such as pastoralism on land held under the Aboriginal Land Trust, needs to take place under the Native Title Act 1993 and Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, and must be within the wishes of traditional owners.
Centrefarm demonstrates the substantial capacity of the Northern Territory to progress environmentally sustainable agriculture for the Territory and for Indigenous people. The Desert Springs melon farm at Ali Curung is the first commercial horticultural enterprise on Aboriginal land through Centrefarm. The first harvest from 30 ha was in May 2008. At November 2009, Centrefarm estimated that the watermelons were producing approximately $70 000 per hectare. Centrefarm also uses horticultural and environmental best practice, and has established monitoring systems such as a method to check that leachate via irrigation water is not polluting aquifers.
Thirty-three locations in Central Australia have been identified for horticultural development. Centrefarm plans to develop at least two new farms a year, and increase this amount in due course, as other traditional owners have expressed interest in developing commercial farms on their land. Many traditional owners and communities in Central Australia have asked Centrefarm to set up community farms next to their communities to produce fresh food and vegetables for their community store, as well as provide employment for young people. Centrefarm works closely with traditional owners and the Central Land Council to ensure the protection of significant and other cultural sites.
The success so far of Centrefarm has generated interest from traditional owners in the Top End to develop Centrefarm modelled horticultural enterprises on their land. Recommendation 1, therefore, asks the government to continue to provide assistance to Centrefarm and other agribusinesses that develop horticultural enterprises.
The committee heard about the success thus far of the Indigenous Pastoral Program in building capacity of people and its focused properties. Under the program, the federal government, the Northern Territory government, Northern Land Council and Central Land Council work together to increase cattle production on Indigenous pastoral leases and land held by Aboriginal land trusts, and Indigenous participation in the Northern Territory pastoral industry. The IPP commenced in commenced in 2002-03, was renewed in 2006, and was due to expire on 30 June 2011. The committee recommended that the government support the further development and renewal of the Indigenous Pastoral Program Northern Territory in 2011 to enable the program to fulfil its long-term objectives.
Increasing public awareness of, and demand for, greater accountability and responsibility by industry in the use of natural resources and humane treatment of animals will continue to affect industry practice in the future. The growing market for products derived from production systems based on ethical and environmental sustainable principles indicates the willingness of consumers to pay for goods and services founded on sustainability principles.
One strategy for market development is sustainability certification. Certification reinforces industry standards and is also a marketing brand. The development of certification and branding in the Territory has potential for creating access to a new market for agricultural industry. One option offered to the committee is the creation of a Northern Territory brand which certifies the producer has met certain standards for environmentally sustainable agriculture. The Northern Territory Horticultural Association suggests the brand name Sustain NT.
Recommendation 14 asks that the government explore options for work with the agricultural industry to develop the concept of a Territory-wide system of certification and branding that is based on environmentally sustainable principles, standards, and industry codes for agricultural production. Recommendation 15 adds to Recommendation 14 by asking that the government, where possible, assist producers aiming to achieve certification from existing national and international industry bodies for environmentally sustainable agricultural production.
The committee found that the government is active in supporting the growth of environmentally sustainable agriculture through policy, regulation, research, education, and information dissemination including extension services and coordination of activities between its own departments, as well as with industry in the community. The committee was pleased to find that since it concluded its evidence gathering, government has produced a number of policy statements which help to progress the development of sustainable agriculture.
The Territory 2030 strategic plan has targets for: identifying suitable land and water for further long-term and sustainable food production; ensuring no deterioration in the health of biodiversity; and increasing government and business expenditure on research. Government has also produced a primary industry extension strategy, an Agribusiness investment booklet, and information on the economic outlook and statistics on primary industry. The committee considers these to be a useful start, but sustained effort is required to implement the identified strategies.
The committee found that communication between government and agricultural sectors with other interest groups and users of natural resources needs to be improved. Greater collaboration between all stakeholders in planning for regional development will prevent the possibility of one industry expanding but cutting off another industry’s opportunities in the process.
Recommendation 8 requests the government to ensure an effective mechanism to foster communication and collaboration between government, agricultural industry groups, and other natural resource management groups in the wider community on the development of environmental sustainable agriculture in the Northern Territory, either through the strategy for guiding public sector extensions in primary industry in the Northern Territory in 2010 to 2015, or by other means.
The Northern Territory agriculture industry also has issues in common with the rest of north Australia. The North Australia Land and Water Taskforce, which looked at the sustainable development of northern Australia, acknowledged the limits to available water and suitable soils for the sustainable development of the region. The North Australia Land and Water Taskforce believes further development of the region has to be smart, and built on the regions unique attributes. The federal government ..
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move that the member be granted an extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I thank the member for Nhulunbuy. I do not think I need 10 minutes, but I thank her for that time.
The federal government has committed to establishing a north Australian sustainable future program as a direct response to a North Australia Land and Water Taskforce recommendation that the Commonwealth government establish a representative body of Western Australia, Queensland, and the Northern Territory to build institutional capacity, improve compliance with the national water initiative, and advocate for the needs and interest of northern Australia.
The North Australia Land and Water Taskforce also recommended that a ministerial council, chaired by the Prime Minister, be established to develop an integrated vision for the sustainable development of northern Australia and provide leadership on key priorities. Recommendation 9 asked that the government actively participate in the establishment and operation of regional bodies such as north Australian regional body or a ministerial council to build institutional capacity and develop an integrated vision for sustainable development of the region. Further to Recommendation 9, Recommendation 10 asks that the Northern Territory government implement the recommendations of the North Australia Land and Water Taskforce where they are applicable to the Northern Territory.
In conclusion, there are many challenges to progressing agricultural production in an environmentally sustainable manner in the Northern Territory. Meeting these challenges requires: a better understanding of the environment; the identification and development of improved production practices; effective communication, education, and training between producers, researchers, government, communities and industry; an evidence-based efficient and effective regulatory framework; adequate transport infrastructure; and market development and investment.
That the agricultural industry embraces more sustainable practices and is open to exploring new ways to do things better is a positive mark of the Territory’s capacity to progress environmentally sustainable development. The foundational work undertaken by government is on the right path to supporting this progress, but there is still work to be done to unlock the Territory’s potential for environmentally sustainable agriculture. We hope the committee’s recommendations will help to advance this progress towards more environmentally sustainable agriculture.
Madam Speaker, I thank all the individuals and organisations which gave their time and advice to the committee to help it reach its conclusions and recommendations. The information and advice received was invaluable and will, hopefully, help to shape any future response from government to strengthen the capacity of the Northern Territory to progress environmentally sustainable agriculture.
I thank the Parliamentary Library staff for their research assistance, the committee office staff for their support, the former chair of the Environment committee, the member for Nhulunbuy, Ms Lynne Walker MLA, who commenced the inquiry, and all the members of the Environment committee for their bipartisan approach to examining this important matter.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, as a member of the committee, I thank the other members of the committee who participated. I thought it was quite a constructive and mature committee: the members for Brennan and Sanderson as the fellow committee members, as well as the member for Nelson and the member for Nhulunbuy, and our chair, the member for Arafura. The member for Arafura caught the member for Brennan on the hop there, so I am happy to speak second. I know the member for Nelson is receiving a briefing.
The charge we had, as a committee, was, I believe, quite an important one; about the Territory’s capacity to progress agriculture production in an environmentally sustainable manner. It is a very critical industry to the Territory. It is one that has grown over the last 10 years - it has just been a bit over 10 years. We have seen it go, essentially, from $250m to $548m, which is quite an impressive growth. There is still more growth in that food sector but, obviously, how we do it and how we manage it is really critical. We have to do it in a sustainable manner to ensure we do not over-tap our resources and make the mistakes made by other parts of the world and, potentially, have been made down south.
We are in a very fortunate position to have an industry which, in many ways, is mature in its attitude. It is not necessarily mature yet in how much it is producing, but certainly going that way - definitely a very mature, professional industry which wants to participate and increase our food production in a sustainable manner. That was evident from the committee’s hearings.
I thank the witnesses who came before the committee: the Water Resources Division from the department; the NT Agricultural Association; the Department of Natural Resources, Environment, The Arts and Sport; the NT Horticultural Association; the Environmental Protection Authority; the NT Cattlemen’s Association; Centrefarm; the Arid Zone Research Institute; and the Department of Regional Development, Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources. All were very capable, competent people who provided different angles on a common discussion point. I thought it was a very constructive and bipartisan committee, and I really enjoyed working with the other members of the committee.
As I said, agriculture already makes a significant contribution to the Northern Territory, and that has been growing over the last 10 years. There is a broader context in some respects - a global context - to the debate we were looking at around sustainability going into food security, something the CSIRO talks about. They put it in the global context of a population going from 6.8 billion to 9 billion by 2050, which is a significant growth in population. We always have to be constantly looking at how we manage, and where we sell our food, and how we are doing it in a sustainable manner.
Australia is, obviously, more than capable of producing enough food for itself. We produce food for ourselves and 50 million people overseas. So, we are very well placed in the sense that we are very efficient and effective managers of our food bowls, of our land. We do not have a problem feeding our population, but we have to look at what our skills set is, in a sense. In many ways, we are world leaders in efficiency of food production and how we manage our country. So, looking at how we manage what we do in the Territory, and our industry manages what it does, and how we grow going into the future, was an important charge of the committee. I believe the report we are talking to has been available for people to look at for a while. The member for Arafura tabled it previously and we are now debating it in parliament. It is a very comprehensive, solid report about the challenges we are facing and some of the ways to go about getting there. I commend her and the committee secretariat.
Central to the management of the environment, central to what we do, is agriculture producers themselves, the people on the land. They are at the heart of it. I had the good fortune of hearing - I am not sure how many people here caught it – the Governor-General give her Australia Day message which was about the Year of the Farmer. I thought she, in some respects, captured that sentiment in the committee’s report about agriculture being central to the management of the environment. As she put it, farmers are the sentinels of our environment. They are the first to see changes in soil, water quality, bird life and natural vegetation. They are also the first fixers.
Often environmental degradation is stopped in its tracks by farmers. Therefore, we need to put at the heart of this the people working on the land - and we did that as a committee. Listening to the expert evidence that came forward, central to everything we thought about and considered was the farmers. Those were very good words. The Governor-General has a very good turn of phrase, and referring to the farmers as the sentinels of our environment and the first fixers, is a really good way of looking at that.
That goes beyond farmers; that goes to anyone who is working on the land. There are, obviously, more than farmers - people who care about land are often the first people to notice changes to the land. That is something we held, at the heart of our committee going forward, because these people have an investment, a stake, and that really affects how you view and monitor things.
There were quite a number of technical definitions, it would be fair to say, around sustainability - many dot points, and comprehensive, detailed ways of cutting it up from the Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, the Australian National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development, the NT’s own EPA has two separate things on it, and to use the department’s acronym, the DRDPIFR, had a very detailed way of breaking it up as well. That is all in the report if you want those technical definitions. They are all in the report, very complicated, very complex - good on them. I like the NT Horticultural Association’s summary. They said:
I thought that was a really good way of summing up all that: take all those dot points and make it one simple sentence. Let us do what we are doing, let us do it better, and let us do it in a way that we can always do it. That sums up what everyone wants to do when it comes to looking after how we grow and breed food in the Territory, or anywhere. I thought that was very well phrased and I commend the NT Horticultural Association again.
The people we heard from clearly understood the importance of environmental sustainability for the protection of natural resources and the long-term viability of their own industries. That goes back to the point that they had a stake. I know this is separate from what we were looking at here in a sense. I was talking to a couple of commercial fishermen the other day at Stuart Park while doorknocking, and their strong message of sustainability was they want to be fishing, and then pass it on to their own children to keep fishing, and they do not want to ever see fishing stopped - go away. People who have an investment, have a care and an interest, and want to see that keep going forward.
Essentially, where we are at? In some respects, a big issue was research and data collection. Reading from the report, that needs to continue to support decisions which best meet the needs of the environmental and sustainable agriculture industry. That is almost one of those most baseline issues, where you have to have good research and data, because with good research and data, you make good decisions. This is central to how you decide what is and is not sustainable. That was a point we kept coming back to, in a sense, making sure we get the research and data right, and we build up that baseline information over a long period so we can be sustainable in the Territory.
We have enough of that data already to bust a myth - and the industry itself busted this myth - that we are going to be a northern food bowl. We can definitely grow and breed more than we currently do - there is no doubt that we can do more. However, there is this image in the south that we are this untapped food bowl. Industry was quick to say that was a fallacy. It believes we can definitely do more sustainably, but the image people down south have of what we are capable of doing is not quite correct. I will quote from a couple of the industry associations on that.
The Northern Territory Agricultural Association said:
They were saying we absolutely need to do more, and we need to get better at what we do and what we have, and we need to do more on what we are not using at the moment. However, there is a myth in some sections of the industry, saying: ‘Do not put too much pressure on us. We can do a lot, but not maybe as much as you think we can’.
The Northern Territory Horticultural Association said something very similar:
The committee performed productively and constructively because, together with the experts who came before the committee, we were all able to agree on the essential premise that we can do more in the Territory and we can do it sensibly. Those were very good points from the NT Agricultural Association and the NT Horticultural Association.
Another area we looked at was to do with land. A large portion of the land mass in the Territory is owned by Indigenous people. We looked at what is happening on that land and how we can do more. There are several small-scale community market gardens and nurseries in remote communities growing fruit and vegetables for local markets. Production activities in small-scale ventures are mostly periodic and, therefore, there is no current data available. The Indigenous sector of horticulture, crops and forestry is small and there is no data available for volume.
Returning to that research point about data and research, this is clearly an area where we do not have enough information at the moment, partly because we are not doing enough at the moment. This is clearly an area of need. The committee looked at what is happening, where it is happening, and what more can be done. Clearly, when you look at sustainability, this land can sustain more than what it currently does.
There are a couple of examples in the report, such as Bawaninga Nursery, the Desert Springs Melon Farm - I am sure most of us know about the Desert Springs Melon Farm - and the Centrefarm model itself where Aboriginal land is leased to a private organisation for a significant period for the purpose of developing a horticultural enterprise and, then, there is remuneration through land rentals. That is a good way of opening up that land that has been quite productive. That has to grow, in a sense, because that land is definitely capable of sustaining more, not just in what produces food-wise, but also in employment. That started going beyond the charge of the committee, in a sense, but was something we looked at which I believe is quite important.
An industry that is very mature in the Territory, which provides many jobs and a good income for the Territory is the pastoral industry. My family had some involvement in the pastoral industry. If you live in the Territory long enough, your family does everything. We had Tennant Creek Station for a while with 6000 head of cattle. This is going back a fair way now to before I was born - 1958 or 1962 I believe it was – when we had Tennant Creek Station which my great-grandfather, Con Perry, ran.
The cattle industry is a very mature industry in the Territory. It was 50 or 60 years ago when we were involved, and there was a cattle industry way before that. It is a very mature industry which contributes a great deal of employment - they have much understanding and knowledge of the land and, as the report said, are a big part of our social character and makeup. We can all agree with that. They are an effective and efficient - getting back to the point of what we are looking at - industry which has found a niche in how they use our land sustainably in grazing cows here before they are shipped live to Southeast Asia and fattened and sold. It is a very efficient, effective model and is very sustainable.
It was good to hear from them and learn some lessons from them. Their presentation was one of the better presentations. Nothing against the others - they were all very good presentations. However, in some respects, the Cattlemen’s Association has been around for a very long time and were up a level in what challenges they saw and what planning they were making for the future.
So, where are we going? As we said, we are not the food bowl that is traditionally pictured. How do we maximise our land to produce food and what other challenges are there? What land can we use, and how can we better use the existing land we have? How do we see the future?
Around agriculture, the distinct vision was smaller mosaics of intensive plant industry production based around robust agronomic models. You can really picture how they are doing that – small areas of quite intense production. That was the way they saw the agriculture section going; how we can use the water and land resource without over-tapping into it. You definitely get a visual picture when you think mosaics. When you fly around in a plane and get that satellite view - that bird’s eye view - of the Territory, you can understand how they could picture that mosaic. That was one direction and there are more in the Top End picture.
The challenge in Central Australia was around the aquifers and the infrequent recharging they have. There was a real issue about how regularly those aquifers are charged. You cannot rely on how often they are going to be filled, so you have to be careful about the type of food production you have, because that is every year you are growing that food - every single year. If the aquifers are not recharged annually you have to be very careful about not over-tapping that shallow water basin, or possibly a water basin which is not charged as often as you would like. That was a real challenge. One of the caveats on the Centrefarm model in Central Australia was about being very careful how you manage access to those aquifers.
We heard from AZRI there are areas around Alice Springs where further development is definitely possible. We are not saying there is not, but you have to be careful in planning. That goes back to research and data and having a really good understanding of what is underneath the soil, and the rainfall.
We also heard about maximising on pastoral properties where there is land capable of growing crops. There is the example from the Horticultural Association about the table grapes industry, where they have given permission for table grapes to be grown on a pastoral property. I am sure we have all driven past that on the Stuart Highway. That is not a bad way ahead; however, you have to be careful how you manage that. The pastoral industry is very successfully managed at the moment and is sustainable but, clearly, you can find a way of double use of that land, which needs to be considered and managed.
Advancing our food industry must be done in the context of sustainability and understanding our land. To quote the Horticultural Association again, which is very quotable:
That was the recurrent message from industry and people we spoke to, saying: ‘Yes, let us do more, but let us do it in a careful, planned way. Let us not over-tap our resources. Let us make sure what we are doing we can keep doing forever. If we are going to plant a crop here let us make sure we can keep doing it’. I believe that was a very sensible and mature approach from industry, which has a very good grasp of what, essentially, are the challenges for the Territory as a place with a growing, healthy industry. We are in a very fortunate position of not having made the mistakes, in many ways, that have been made down south. We are able to learn from those mistakes that have been made in other parts of the world so we do not make those mistakes here - we do not over-assume what our land is capable of doing, or what our water is capable of irrigating. That was the most important, essential message we received from people who spoke to the committee.
Looking at how we can open up that land - I spoke about the doubling up on the pastoral property, the water challenges around Central Australia, the mosaics in the Top End - the last is probably the Centrefarm model which has the potential to be applied on Indigenous-owned land in all the regions of the NT. We heard, as a committee, about the work going on between Top End traditional owners, the NLC and Centrefarm to look at the model, the lessons learned, and how they can establish that model in the Top End. That was on track, and progressing. One of the critical challenges about opening that land up for sustainable development is, obviously, not more than they can handle. It would be a very welcome to see sustainable food production on that land, but also employment, which is a really critical issue coming out of this.
It was not quite within the charge of the committee but, if we can get industry and sustainable agriculture on that land, see food grown and bred on that land, then we will also see employment opportunities. Industry in rural and regional areas is something we all want to see in all shapes. This is one where there is a great deal of potential if we are careful about how we do it, if we get that research and data right, our planning right, if we avoid those mistakes made down south, and if we have the right sets of assumptions going forward.
People who talk about damming the entire Territory and turning it into a massive food bowl just do not understand the soils we have here. The fact that we are often in drought for six months of the year - it rains a bit over the Wet Season but, then, in the Dry there is not much rain. Basically, we are in drought for half the year. There is a lack of understanding about how our climate works, how and what our soils can bear. As long as we get the set of assumptions right going forward - and we know with confidence that our industry has the right set of assumptions because they told us.
They sat in the room and told us what the assumptions were. As I said, they are sentinels; they are the first fixers, they are the ones who most understand the land they are working; they are on the land. They have those assumptions right; we heard them very clearly. It is all encompassed in this report. Therefore, if you get those assumptions right, you can plan carefully for the future, and we are in a very good position.
I commend the work of the chair and the committee secretariat, and the people who came before the committee. It was a very interesting committee to be on. We certainly enjoyed having those people who get their hands dirty working on the land, who understand the land - the sentinels and the first fixers - come before us and talk about what they thought was the broad picture, what they saw regarding where the Territory is going, what they thought the land could handle, and what they think the future holds.
Madam Speaker, there is no doubt the future is bright, and that is why I am very happy to commend this report to the House.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, first, to the chair, thank you very much, and to all the members involved. It was an interesting journey, although the report was tabled - what was it? - in March last year – was it March last year?
Ms Scrymgour: Yes, in Alice Springs.
Mr CHANDLER: Yes, Alice Springs, was it not? Yes. It was a very good committee to be on, because of that bipartisan approach. We all recognise the Territory does have opportunity.
I first thank all those people who contributed to the committee and the hearings and gave up their time. As the member for Fannie Bay alluded to, many people who offer advice and information to committees like this are usually pushing their own barrow. However, most people provided a very balanced approach to the information they were providing.
I will not speak for too long for two reasons: one, the member for Arafura gave a very comprehensive summary in opening which covered just about everything of the report, as did the member for Fannie Bay. I am sure the member for Nhulunbuy will do just the same. Second, it was March last year and I recall writing some very comprehensive notes about this report - which are filed away in my electorate office. I will just talk a little about the journey. From a personal point of view, I was a little worried at the beginning thinking that I had seen some evidence of an over-cautious approach by the Northern Territory government in regard to what could be seen as opportunities in the Northern Territory.
I have to tell you that everyone on the committee had a very open approach to this. There were no closed minds; we were open to the information that came forward. If you read the report, you will see there were no assumptions made prior to the information coming forward; no one had pre-set positions on the matter. That was something that honestly worried me at the start. I thought there would be a little - I do not like to use the word snowballing - push from the government’s side that we had to do all we could to protect the environment and what I would see from the outside as stiflingly industry and any growth. However, that did not happen. Again, I applaud the members on the committee; they were very open to it.
There are two words which came through for me, and one was sustainability. That is something we all have to agree on. It is pointless if we just rush off and overdevelop the Northern Territory. The other side of it was the opportunity. There are still many opportunities in the Northern Territory. Yes, the term ‘food bowl’ is often over used but we need to temper that by saying we can provide a lot more than we are providing today. There are some opportunities out there, and that is something that the government should support, but it also has to be backed up by decent data. That is something the report also calls for.
It is amazing when you travel around the Northern Territory and you can see melons growing in the desert. You can go to Katherine and see peanuts and other crops growing out of what is just red sand. It is an amazing thing to see. Of course, it takes a lot of water but it is something the Northern Territory, particularly the Top End, has an abundance of with Wet Seasons every year. We have the ability to recharge our aquifers, as we see every year. The records, particularly in the last 10 years, have shown a real increase in that water. It has not always been the case, but if you believe some of the science of climate change, rainfalls should increase in the future. That is something that will provide us with some certain opportunities.
What also came through the report for me was the importance of food security. We have seen it in recent times with the live cattle export in Indonesia. Indonesia is now looking at trying to build up its own supply of beef. Food security is going to be one of those things that will impact on us into the future, maybe not for the next few years. However, 20, 30, 50 years down the track, food security for all nations is going to be vitally important. We are all going to be required to pull our own weight to ensure we are doing all we can to provide that food security.
With the Ord River Stage 3, which is on the side of the Northern Territory border, there are some big opportunities. Without trying to take away the bipartisan approach of this committee, there are some real opportunities in some of that early infrastructure there this government has missed working with the Western Australian government on. When I visited there, they were talking about the new channel they were building. Do not quote me on the figures but I think they were looking at a channel of about 6 m wide to provide water into the Stage 2 area. With a little additional money, they could make the channel 8 m wide, which would provide ample water into Stage 3. That is where this government really should be working with the Western Australian government, providing the resources that are needed. Whilst they are doing the work is the easiest time to be doing things like widening that channel, or actually making it wider as they are constructing it, so in the future, Stage 3 has the necessary water required to develop.
There are still opportunities in the Daly River area. I can absolutely say - and we heard it in Question Time today - damming the Daly River is certainly not something on our plans. In fact, I do not know where you would successfully put a dam on the Daly River ...
Mr Wood: Mt Nancar is where they wanted to.
Mr CHANDLER: Yes. It would not be feasible engineering, nor would it provide the necessary water, plus the damage it would create would be just not acceptable. When it comes to water, we sometimes have a little over-cautious approach to it. We have Wet Seasons every year and, as I said, particularly in the last 10 years, we have seen an increase in rainfall in our Wet Seasons. Who knows? That is not to say we are always going to have continued rainfalls as we are having today. Perhaps we will get even more rain; it is still in the hands of the gods. We really have to be fair with our water. It comes down to the data we have and the data we will continue to collect in the future; we get a better picture with what resources we have out there.
I go back to that word, sustainability. We have to have a sustainable approach with any development we have in the Northern Territory. When we talk about development in the Northern Territory, I have heard if you have a map of the Northern Territory, about an A4 size, and you were to put all the towns, the cities, and all the area that is used for horticulture and other purposes, it would fit about the size of one postage stamp. So, it is not a great area we are talking about when it comes to what we have developed and what we will probably develop in many years into the future.
As the member for Fannie Bay said, we certainly need more data and more baseline information. That is why this report covers off on that information. I know the government is doing some work on that at the moment but, with that information, we really should put it to its best use and ensure we do not stifle industry and growth into the future - we support it, but we support it through good data. The one thing I believe this report has indicated is we do have opportunity out there, we do have potential, and it is something we should really be investigating and supporting into the future.
Madam Speaker, again, thank you to the team, to all who were involved, and to those people who provided information in the hearings. It was an interesting journey. Again, I cannot overstate that the approach was very open, and I applaud everyone who was involved in that approach. I believe that comes through in the end document.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I would like to respond to the Northern Territory Capacity to Progress Environmentally Sustainable Agricultural Production committee report - that is a mouthful, I do not know what the acronym would be like. It is a report which has taken some time to come to fruition. A problem with that is sometimes some issues are a little out of date.
On reading, and being part of, the report, it is interesting to note that out of the 16 recommendations, 13 of those come from the last chapter, The Role of Government. Perhaps that, in itself, shows how much work is still required if we are to make sensible decisions about sustainable agriculture in the north. I believe the chair of the committee was spot on when she said in her preface, which I will read a paragraph from:
I could also add repeat the mistakes of previous agricultural development in the Northern Territory, examples being Tipperary and Scott Creek.
That leads to the fact I do not support those who tend to rubbish the idea the north can be a major contributor to food production for Australia and the world. It may never be the food bowl, but it certainly will be a valuable contributor. There are some fairly negative people out there who, basically, want the Territory locked up for good but have no idea there is potential for the Northern Territory when it comes to agriculture. You only have to see what is being grown at the moment.
You can see that, to move forward, we need governments which are willing to invest in the research to allow us to make those decisions. The recommendations in the report are about moving forward so we do not sit on our hands and listen to the doomsayers, but use our brains and learn from past experience, both good and bad, and achieve something.
I recently had a briefing from the Department of Resources, which will one day be called the department of primary industry, and I was very pleased to receive that briefing. I cannot remember the gentlemen’s names but they were both in research. We had a meeting about watermelon wilt and the snake bean wilt. We did not stick to those two particular crops; we talked about some of the changes occurring in relation to new varieties of bananas and mangos. Many mango varieties are being worked through by the Department of Agriculture in Queensland. However, it is good to see there is ongoing research that is changing and improving agriculture in the Northern Territory. I may be quoted, but Kensington Pride mangos produce something like seven or eight tonnes per hectare, and some of the new varieties produce nearly four times that amount.
We are moving forward, and that is great. Agriculture needs to develop and diversify because we need a diverse economy, not one based on the GST received from the Commonwealth but from our own resources such as agriculture. Agriculture itself needs to be diverse. That was especially highlighted by the problems the live cattle industry had to endure recently. When I commented that this report is slightly dated, it does not mention the effect of the live cattle ban that occurred last year.
The report detailed the issues we need to consider. It should be noted that, although we need to continue with ongoing research, we should not forget much of the knowledge we already have. One of the dangers in the research industry is when people retire, if there is not a succession plan for researchers, there is a danger of research being left in out-of-the-way cupboards and not seen again, or not be available for a continuation of research in the particular area.
Research is the key, and that is expressed clearly in the executive summary. I quote from the third paragraph of the executive summary:
I could not agree more.
The report also covers areas such as protection of our biodiversity, water, and soil management, Indigenous economic development, climate change and carbon farming, infrastructure and markets.
The member for Brennan spoke about water. I am also of the belief we have plenty of water; the problem is how you can catch that water, especially in the Wet Season, and store it. There is a section in the report on this particular matter. It is certainly an area in which we need to do more research. If you have lived on the Daly during a flood, you would have to scratch your head as to why you could not take 10% of that water out and store it somewhere. I cannot believe it would have any effect on the environment. The amount of water that goes down the Daly in a big flood is just enormous. Of course, that has a purpose in itself: floods the plains out towards the Moil and flushes out all the prawns into the sea. I still believe if the Romans had sat around and said ‘We cannot use a bit of water in our aqueducts’, there probably would not have been a Roman Empire either.
We have to find the balance between the requirements of humans, balanced with the requirements of the environment. If it means we have to start to think outside the square when it comes to the storage of water, then that is what we have to do. I am pretty sure there have been people looking at this issue for a long time. However, research into that area of water storage is something which needs to be looked at.
I will put on record that I am not actually opposed to dams, but I am opposed to dams in the wrong place. Perhaps there are certain parts of the Daly River catchment upstream where small dams could actually store water, and a number of small dams then could supply areas for agriculture. It is a matter of using your science and research. Dams should not be just taken off the agenda just because they are not the flavour of the day; they should be looked at in a scientific manner. If you could have small dams that simply have very little effect on the environment but, at the same time, accumulatively store a lot of water, then we certainly should look at it.
Darwin could not live without the Darwin River Dam. You could argue the Darwin River Dam caused problems with the environment. Well, it probably did - the barramundi do not have quite as far to go; they cannot go upstream because there is a wall in the road. Perhaps the movement of …
Mr Styles: Get rid of that.
Mr WOOD: Yes. That was the member for Sanderson speaking for the amateur fishing association.
There is the place for dams; it is just they have to be in the right place and be thought through correctly. We cannot have an expanded cropping and horticultural industry unless we have adequate water ...
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr WOOD: So, let us not bury our heads in the sand as some of our green colleagues tend to do, but ensure when we are talking about things we do it in a logical and scientific way.
There will always be downsides to any development. No matter whether it is new suburbs in Palmerston - as you can see, many trees are destroyed - there is an effect on the environment. However, we do not say, do not have new suburbs. What we do is, hopefully, plan them properly so they have a minimal effect on the environment.
An interesting section in the report was the state of the present industry, which discusses the state of agriculture plant industries which include cropping, forestry, and horticulture and, of course, pastures and cattle. Sometimes, people do not realise the amount of development that is already occurring, from an agricultural perspective, in the Northern Territory. I mentioned last year I was heading down to Robinson River, and we stopped at Woolies at Katherine, and they were selling corn, tomatoes, I think sweet potato, and watermelons - all grown locally either at Kalano or on Fox Road somewhere. They were good, high-quality fruit and vegetables. I speak from my own experience. We used to grow lettuce and cabbages on the Daly River in a good Dry Season, no problem at all, plus many other fruit and vegetables. It can be done.
Some of the academics I heard at a talk at the Convention Centre, some three or four years ago, put this whole process of growing food and vegetables here as a load of nonsense. I felt like saying it was obvious they have never grown anything, because they did not know there has been a history of food production in the Northern Territory – some successful, some a disaster. However, you go through those disasters and work out better ways to achieve production without the problems some of those bad projects caused.
We have been able to grow, and we are growing, crops in the Northern Territory, and we are doing it in a sensible way. The question needs to be asked: why can we not do more of it? You do not grow crops for the sake of growing crops - no commercial person would do that. However, as the markets increase and open up, and as there are limitations on the use of water down south, I believe there will be more pressure on opening up the Northern Territory. I say it is probably better that people come to the north rather than try to send water to the south, because I believe that is not the way to go.
The report was developed over a long time and, as I said before, most of it is still current. The main concern would be the live cattle debacle, also the reduction in the number of cattle and the problems with trying to keep their live weight at a certain level.
An area I do not believe the report touched on - at least, not in any major way - is the area of biosecurity. I mentioned to the House I had a meeting with some members of the Department of Resources discussing recent problems with watermelons - something that did not occur a few years ago. You never had to go and graft snake beans before, or watermelons; it was unknown. You just planted seed, which was what was so nice about it; it was not very hard to do. It might have been hard to produce the crop, but planting the seed was not difficult. Now, they have wilt. We know what happened to bananas in the Northern Territory with the introduction of Panama Disease, and there are quite a few other diseases as well. However, but we have overcome some of those problems.
I was talking to the departmental people about sweet potato. I used to grow quite a considerable amount of sweet potato on Bathurst Island, and we used to have a disease which caused very small leaves and the crop would produce no tubers at all. They said the varieties you can buy in the shops at the present time are American varieties and are resistant to those diseases. So, there has been work - even if it is overseas - on producing crops that can overcome some of the plant diseases which have come into the Territory. However, that does not mean we want those diseases. We do not want to have a continual battle fighting against diseases that are reducing our crop production; we need to ensure there is plenty of money going into keeping these diseases out. It is an ongoing problem because people try to bring plant material from places in Asia and, obviously, they succeed at times because Panama Disease did not just fall out of the sky. Although some people believe it came by magpie geese, I believe it came to Australia by plane, more than likely, and has spread from there.
Also, where did we get the wilt for snake bean and watermelons? It appears some of those particular diseases were introduced into the Territory from either interstate or overseas. Therefore, we need to ensure when we are talking about sustainable agriculture - and I use the word ‘sustainable’ meaning if we are going to do something it does not cost the next generation heaps of money to fix up the problem. The sustainability we are talking about is ensuring we reduce the risk of diseases coming into the Territory so we do not spend our taxpayers’ money on fixing up the disease – we need to ensure we do not have that problem at all. At times, we do not take into account the cost to the taxpayer of some of these problems that have arisen simply because people have not done the right thing.
Some people complain about Ord River Stage 2, or the Ord River in general, that it has cost taxpayers a great deal of money, but I believe, in the end, money in the Ord River would be money well spent because it is developing an area for the future where we can grow crops. There are places where I believe the government needs to spend its money on infrastructure and, I would support that knowing, in the long term, that it will be good for the development of agriculture and horticulture - in this case in the Ord and, hopefully, Stage 3 of the Ord, which is in the Northern Territory.
There are plenty of good recommendations in this report which should fit into the 2030 plan - not that we should wait for the year 2030, but we should be heading towards it now and doing something positive. I do not believe we should just sit and say we need to wait for all this research and we need to do this. We should also be actively pursuing and developing our agricultural industry, with a certain amount of precautionary processes. However, we do not want to just say, ‘Well, we do not have all this research done and we have not done all this, therefore, we should not do anything’, as long as we are cautious.
I wonder when I hear people talking about agricultural practices. Well, agricultural practices have been around a long time - things like land left fallow, ploughing in cover crops to increase the humus, ploughing on the contour, developing contour production by planting your trees along the contour to reduce erosion. A lot of those basic agricultural and horticultural practices have been around for over 100 years but, sometimes, when you hear people talk about this, you would think it was something that was brand new. People who are in the agricultural industry and have been in it for a long time know these systems.
Sometimes, I hear people talk about it as if the agricultural sector is dumb. In many cases, some of the developments in the Northern Territory have led to changes in agricultural methods throughout Australia, and one of those was the no till production methods. My understanding is that developed in the Douglas Daly region where the problems with the high and intensive rainfall meant that ploughing land and leaving it bare was just ideal for massive erosion. Some of those farmers found it was easier to leave the stubble and plant directly into the stubble. Now, that technique is moving throughout Australia. In fact, I saw the other day - I think it was on Landline - where one farmer does not plough at all. His ploughs have been put in the shed and left there, because he uses a no till method because they find that the least disturbance of the soil the better; the moisture content is preserved much more than if you open up the ground. I am fairly sure a lot of that work was developed in the Douglas Daly in the days when they were planting crops such soybean and other similar crops.
I thank the people who have put this report together. As I said, it has taken a long time. I thank my fellow members on the committee - the members for Arafura, Nhulunbuy, Fannie Bay, Brennan and Sanderson - and also the staff who have worked on it - Russell Keith, Maria Viegas, Lauren Copley, Pauline Lewis, Kim Cowcher and Robyn Smith - for all the hard work they have done.
I also thank the people who contributed to this report. We have a section in this report from a number of people who put in written submissions,: the Department of Regional Development, Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources; the Horticultural Association; the Environment Protection Authority; and we received oral evidence from the Water Resources Division, the Northern Territory Agricultural Association …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move that the member be granted an extension of time to conclude his remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Nhulunbuy.
I notice the Northern Territory Agricultural Association and Fergal O’Gara have brought out a very good publication on sustainable agriculture. For everyone interested in this area, it is certainly worth looking at. The NT Horticultural Association had a PowerPoint presentation. It is certainly interested in sustainable development and is a very proactive association as well.
There was the NT Environment Protection Authority, the NT Cattlemen’s Association, with people like Luke Bowen, who certainly understands their industry is very much part of this sustainable agricultural production. We were happy to get their input. There was the Centrefarm Aboriginal Horticultural Ltd. These people have identified land throughout Central Australia which is suitable for horticultural and agricultural production. The areas which stand out are areas such as Ti Tree and Ali Curung, where there is a very large melon farm near the Ali Curung township. I visited about two years ago and it is a significant area for horticulture. The number of watermelons coming off that area is quite considerable. The disappointing thing for me is there was only one or two local Aboriginal people employed in that development.
I will get back on a pet hobby horse – why do we have welfare when there are adequate jobs next door? I heard a story that people thought the work was too hard. Melon growing is as common throughout Australia as picking oranges and apples. It is all hard work but it is work. It is difficult to understand why you can have welfare next to an industry which requires employees. When I left there was only one Aboriginal person from that community employed on that site and that is disappointing.
The Arid Zone Research Institute - I visited there a couple of years ago - gave some oral evidence. They are carrying out some interesting experiments at the moment, especially in relation to the reuse of sewerage water from Alice Springs. I am unsure, at this stage, whether it is growing any crops yet, but it cannot be too far away. That is an interesting area for research. If you are looking at the reuse of water, there is a good example of how that could happen.
We received evidence from all these people and their comments are included in this document, which is what makes it a pretty fulsome report.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank all members of the staff and fellow members of parliament for compiling this report. I hope it does not sit on a dusty shelf somewhere, and the government looks at it and takes seriously the recommendations put forward.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, today I talk about the report which has been tabled in this House following extensive investigation by the committee into the Northern Territory’s capacity to progress agricultural production in a manner which is environmentally sustainable. Without a doubt, this is a subject of critical importance for the future, not only for the Northern Territory, but for every other jurisdiction in the nation and, indeed, every country around the world.
All governments face growing challenges to develop agricultural industries at a time when there are growing populations which need to be fed, the need to create job markets to work in those industries, and the need to grow agricultural and horticultural economies. We face these challenges whilst also balancing the need to recognise and minimise the impacts on the environment. As the chair said in her opening remarks, the Territory’s natural resources, like any natural resources, are definitely finite.
Governments most definitely have a key role to play in being active participants in, and partners with, agricultural industry. Again, as the chair said in her preface to the report:
Since becoming a member of this House, I have been on, and continue to be on, quite a learning curve about the Northern Territory and the many facets of government policy and service delivery, and also learning about the many and multifaceted industries which contribute to our economy at a Territory and a national level.
During the course of the committee’s inquiry, members and secretariat held a number of public hearings – six, in fact. I thought there were more, but six are listed in our report. We gathered a huge amount of evidence about the past, present, and future of the agricultural and horticultural industries in the Northern Territory.
We heard from the various government agencies including the department of Regional Development, department of Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources, the department of Natural Resources and Environment as well as the Environment Protection Authority, AZRI - the Arid Zone Research Institute - and also those key players and industry representative groups such as the Cattlemen’s Association of the Northern Territory, the Northern Territory Horticultural Association, the Northern Territory Agricultural Association, and organisations such as Centrefarm Aboriginal Horticulture.
What has been tabled in this parliament is a very comprehensive account of the committee’s inquiry and its findings, and the subsequent 16 recommendations. To this end, I thank our secretariat for their hard work in pulling the evidence together. I thank Ms Maria Viegas, Ms Lauren Copley, Ms Pauline Lewis, Ms Kim Cowcher, Ms Robyn Smith, but I make special mention of Mr Russell Keith, Clerk Assistant, Committees, for stepping in at quite a late stage of our investigation and reporting, and for his work in assisting, overseeing, and pulling together what was the final report. It is worth noting - and other members, in contributing to this debate, have said - the members on the committee worked well together. It was all very much in the spirit of bipartisanship, as you would expect on such an important subject as this.
In my very early years in the Territory, I spent two years living in Katherine - this is going back about 23, 24 years - where I taught at the high school. Being the small community Katherine is - or it certainly was a bit smaller then - I got to know, as you would expect, many different people from a cross-section of that community, and saw firsthand the important role Katherine and the surrounding region has in the Territory’s agricultural and horticultural communities. Obviously, with many cattle stations in that region, I taught many kids off those stations. Mango farms were, and still are, very productive. Actually, that was the first time I had ever eaten a fresh mango. I always thought it was a very exotic fruit and, indeed, it is, but it was the first time in my life I had ever tasted mangoes.
During my time there, I also saw the establishment of Rowland’s Dairy. I also knew people, including scientists who worked with the CSIRO. Indeed, in the unit I live in, behind me was a couple who were both working for the CSIRO conducting research into developing sustainable crops. Given that the Katherine River provides a year-round source of water, rice and, I think, maize were being trialled at that time with varying degrees of success. More recently, peanuts are one of the crops grown in Katherine.
When I think back to those years, I am also reminded of one of my teaching colleagues who, apart and in addition to being a teacher, with her husband, ran a family business on Florina Road running a mango farm. In fact, she continues to run that farm with her husband while also being the instigator of fresh produce markets in Katherine. In fact, Norma Higgins has been recognised for her contribution to the Territory’s horticultural sector, having been recognised in the past as the Territory’s Rural Woman of the Year in 2008. This was followed in 2010 with Norma receiving recognition nationally for her work in that area. It is that recognition that saw Norma’s photograph placed on the cover of the 2011-12 Yellow and White Pages Directory for the Northern Territory. There is a lovely photograph of her on the front in her work gear, with secateurs in her hand, with the mango trees behind. The caption says: ‘Australians Creating a Better Future, Norma Higgins, food hero …’. I say all power to Norma Higgins.
I heard her being interviewed by Julia Christensen when that photograph appeared. She was asked by Julia Christensen had she gone to the hairdressers, did she think carefully about what she was going to wear? Knowing Norma as I do, she just said: ‘Oh no, I just wear what I wear when I am out there and I did not do anything special. I just stood there in front of the camera’ ...
Mr Westra van Holthe: Hear, hear! She is a great role model.
Ms WALKER: She is, indeed. I still see Norma from time to time. Her son, Tasman, lives and works in Gove. She is a proud grandmother to little Angus, so she does pop out to Gove with her husband, David, from time to time. I just want to read, when I did a quick Google on Norma earlier today, the spiel that appeared that sums up her efforts. It said:
So, congratulations to Norma on being a dedicated teacher for many years. She, obviously, recognises the importance of pathways through education into jobs in this industry and has worked hard in that area.
What it highlights for me is contributions to developing the agricultural and horticultural industries around the Territory occur on a number of different levels in different regions. This goes to Recommendation 1 of the report which recommends that government continue to provide assistance to Centrefarm and other agricultural businesses that develop horticultural enterprises. Whether it be at that smaller level such as we have seen in Katherine or on a bigger scale down in Central Australia or the Top End, they are all important in developing and growing those enterprises and markets.
The committee took evidence from key stakeholders in Centrefarm at the end of one of our Alice Springs sittings. Might we have had more time, I would very much like to have gone out, on the ground, to visit their operations such as the one they have called Desert Springs Melon Farm at Ali Curung where, at the end of November 2009, yields of watermelons were estimated to be approximately $70 000 per hectare, which is quite a considerable yield.
Centrefarm has been in operation since 2002 and, clearly, they have developed a workable model for growing fresh produce in and around communities on Indigenous-owned land in Central Australia, a considerable but very successful achievement in hot, dry conditions made possible by access to water. If you are going to have crops you must have water and, no doubt, that is a real challenge in desert areas. This innovative approach to developing horticultural enterprise in what would normally be a challenging environment clearly benefits Indigenous people through the provision of training and jobs, as well as producing the fresh produce for markets in and beyond the Territory. Of course, what it also means is fresh and very affordable products within these remote communities where food security, I know, can be a problem.
In addition to Centrefarm operation on two sites, they advised us that there are 33 other locations in Central Australia identified for horticultural development. While there are demonstrated results and potential for growth, there are drawbacks and hurdles to overcome, of which some are easier than others.
We also took evidence from AZRI, Arid Zone Research Institute, with witnesses detailing ways in which poor soil and high temperatures might be overcome; for example, by growing lettuces hydroponically and under shade cloth.
Regarding some of those other drawbacks that were mentioned - and not just in Central Australia but within the Northern Territory - there were industry-specific challenges including limited marketing which is uncoordinated. Surely, that is something that it is problematic; it is not insurmountable.
Other drawbacks include the long distances to major wholesale markets in the eastern and southern capital cities, the high cost of goods such as fertilisers due to the primarily very high transport costs - we know those fertilisers are needed because of the relatively overall poor soil quality across the Territory - as well as some poor water quality issues in some areas.
I also note, as a drawback, the increase in population of growers from non-English-speaking backgrounds who are disengaged from the wider community and, therefore, will struggle to access opportunities. Surely, something like that is not insurmountable in supporting those growers for whom English is not a first language.
Another issue was the cost of managing weeds, and also the proximity of bushland near properties and, associated with that, managing native and feral animal populations can be quite a challenge.
We heard also that, in Central Australia, we are quite encouraged by the work that Centrefarm has been doing in producing melons. We heard about producers who are growing table grapes - I know that business has been going for a while. Pomegranates, cabbages and cauliflowers are relatively new to the market, as are olives. Olives thrive in a Mediterranean-type climate and, whilst Central Australia is certainly not Mediterranean, there are, obviously, growers who are adapting their practices to produce that particular crop.
Apart from Central Australia, the committee heard evidence and received submissions about agribusiness from around Katherine and the Top End. Whilst there are certainly good pockets of success, the Northern Territory Horticultural Society were very clear in its advice and evidence provided around limitations to the capacity of the Territory to be the food bowl of the nation. I believe that struck a chord with each one of us on the committee, because it has been mentioned every time. I believe it is important to mention, because it comes up from time to time. It has been in the national debate in recent months that the Northern Territory could and should be the food bowl of the nation. However, there are far too many things at the moment that prohibit that being the case so long as we have a low population, varying soil qualities, diverse climatic conditions, along with a vast geographical area coupled with the tyranny of distance from markets. All of that makes the food bowl concept beyond our reach in the short to medium term.
I commend the NT Horticultural Association for its submission. It put together a very thorough and well-prepared document. They also provided us their Natural Resource Management Strategic Plan 2009-2013, subtitled Driving sustainable horticulture and responsible environmental management in the Northern Territory. That is the type of subtitle which should be on all stakeholders’ strategic plans in the agricultural and horticultural sector, recognising the need for industry, our representative groups and their members to partner with government and form strategic alliances to work towards goals and targets to see that vision of sustainable development a reality.
We also heard from the department of Primary Industry about smaller market gardens at places like Maningrida operated by Bawinanga, and even Yirrkala in my electorate, which still grows the best bananas I have ever tasted.
Knowing the importance of the cattle industry, we certainly welcomed the evidence and the overview which was provided by the NT Cattlemen’s Association. Such was the interest, I believe every member of the committee had requested from Luke Bowen, the CE of the NT Cattlemen’s Association, a copy of his PowerPoint presentation which he delivered to us. It was comprehensive and we all learnt things that we did not know before becoming a member of the committee.
I was particularly interested knowing the role of Indigenous communities and cattlemen in the industry over the years. I was especially interested to hear about the Indigenous Pastoral Program, established in 2002, which has two prime goals: first, an increase in cattle numbers on Aboriginal freehold land; and, second, increasing participation by Aboriginal people in the pastoral industry. We learned there are 18 high-priority properties, six of which are run by owner management, and 12 leased to outside pastoralists. This covers a land area of approximately 53 000 km2. The program has realised an increase in cattle numbers of over 53 000 head.
The program is about providing a number of support mechanisms which will build the long-term capacity of Indigenous pastoral enterprises. This Indigenous Pastoral Program includes a number of stakeholders. Obviously involved are the Central and Northern Land Councils, the Cattlemen’s Association, government agencies, the Indigenous Land Corporation that put funding into the program, the Commonwealth Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, and the Northern Territory department of Regional Development, Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources. It is a really solid example of government working across those sectors to achieve real results.
The focus at the moment is about building up the capacity of people within the current list of priority properties so the results achieved to date will remain sustainable. We know the Northern Territory has a very proud history of Indigenous Territorians, skilful horsemen, involved in the cattle industry. We have seen a drop off in the involvement in that industry. The issues around why that participation has reduced are very complex, but we all hope to see that collective drive to building that capacity continue.
We hear things like the story of Ngukurr School last year where a group of students, as part of their school program, were learning about horsemanship and working on cattle properties ...
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! I move the member be given an extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Ms WALKER: Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the Leader of Government Business.
That droving trip was in September last year. I have gone back through some of the media it generated at the time. An article from the ABC website states:
Members have talked about the science behind all of this. Obviously, climate change was an important part of the evidence we received. NRETAS’ submission covered climate change in relation to agriculture in the Northern Territory. They basically dealt with four specific issues, climate change projections for the Northern Territory being one of them. The second one was potential impacts of climate change on agriculture in the Northern Territory. The third was around greenhouse gas emissions from the agriculture sector. The fourth area they addressed was mitigating greenhouse gas emissions from the agriculture sector.
We heard some of that science from the EPA as well. At that time, the Chair of the EPA was Dr Andrew Tupper, head of the Bureau of Meteorology in the Northern Territory. In Dr Tupper we have someone who has vast knowledge and experience in weather patterns, what influences them, and the role of climate change. Without a doubt, the research and the science is absolutely critical in planning to mitigate for potential impacts to ensure that agricultural and horticultural business is sustainable so we can continue to grow those industries. Evidence-based policy based on the science is critical. As the member for Nelson said in his contribution, if we do not have water we cannot move forward. We need to accept the very real threat climate change presents, and to plan for it accordingly.
I do not have anything more to say, other than it has been a very valuable experience to be part of that committee. Like others, I look forward to hearing what government’s response will be to the recommendations in this report.
The last thing I wanted to flag - and it is just an incidental thing - as the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee, we made a decision early on in the piece that we would receive all of our documents electronically, as opposed to piles of folders. So, in my office, I have a pile of red folders that is about this high which is for the Subordinate Legislation committee I am on; and the Public Accounts Committee is all green manila folders which is about this high. When I went digging around, looking for my folders in relation to this particular committee to prepare my contribution today, I came across a pile that is, basically, about this high. That was largely the submissions handed to us by those providing evidence. There is some value in that. I am sure we all printed some of the documents we received, but working towards paperless offices is certainly one thing we can strive for.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend the report to the House.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
Dr BURNS (Education and Training): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I have a statement, Education, Investing in Our Future.
Before I turn to the statement, I preface the statement by saying this statement, which was distributed yesterday, also coincided with the release of the Gonski report, which is a comprehensive review of funding and education in Australia. The Gonski review is very important for the Territory, very significant for Australia. It contains 41 recommendations. It is very comprehensive. In the main, I believe, it will be very positive for the Northern Territory, in both the government and non-government sectors. However, it needs much analysis, and there is going to be a lot of work done in the Territory, with other jurisdictions, and with the Commonwealth. It is very important. I know work is going on at present with Treasury and the Education Department. We will be speaking about Gonski in this place in the future, and I am certainly looking forward to it.
I have read as much as I can of Gonski. There is much to take in there. I will be looking to be briefed as soon as possible on the implications. I offer to other members here - wherever they might be in the electorates they represent; whether they be government or non-government - briefings on Gonski when it comes to hand. It is a very important report to the Territory and Australia generally. As I said, this statement I distributed yesterday, coincided with the release of Gonski yesterday. In that context, I just wanted to point out why this particular statement does not address issues within Gonski itself. However, It is an important discussion we will have to have in this place. I am saying to members that as soon as we have a clearer view, you are very welcome to have a briefing from the department on this very important report.
Turning to my written report, we know in the Territory that if a child goes to school every day they will receive a great education. Government has said many times that education is our No 1 priority. We say so because we know it is the key to delivering social, cultural, and economic development to the benefit of all Territorians. We also know it is one of the most important factors in ensuring quality of life for people, and crucial in building a strong economy and a stable and healthy society.
Over the years, this government has gone to extraordinary lengths to ensure that young Territorians have a great education. In 2001, we inherited an education system than was, essentially, neglected as a result of governments that took no real interest in Territory education, especially Indigenous education in the bush. From the very beginning, we set about reforming the education system, building new schools, improving all others, and putting in place programs such as secondary education for remote students which, incredibly, had been denied to Territory kids for over 27 years since self-government.
The education environment in the Territory today is in the best shape it has ever been. We have great schools, excellent teachers and principals, and quality programs, all of which are equal to the best in the country. We know Territorians strongly believe that education and training should be front and centre of the government’s priorities. They made that clear in Territory 2030. We continue to invest heavily in this area with a record $930m budget. We are a government which has a plan and a vision for education in the Territory. Our Smart Territory strategic plan has been at the core of the innovative approach we are taking to education so we have the best schools and our students have the best opportunities ahead of them.
Our efforts have been considered and strategic. It was necessary to have the essentials in place in advance of important amendments to the Education Act and the robust Every Child, Every Day strategy that we are implementing to address unsatisfactory levels of school attendance. Once again, I reiterate the strong message to parents and families that Territory schools are great schools and, if your child goes to school every day, they will get a great education. Through our amendments to the Education Act, we have signalled that we are serious about children attending school regularly. If they do not, there will be real consequences.
In partnership with the Australian government we have ensured Territory students have access to the best possible school facilities in which to learn. The Building Education Revolution, or BER, investment of $270m, and co-investment of $246m by the Territory government, has provided fantastic new infrastructure for government and non-government schools across the Territory.
By way of a snapshot of activity in 2011, the majority of BER projects have been completed, ending an historic and outstanding effort by the building and construction industry to deliver 142 major infrastructure projects. Recent capital works include:
Acacia Hills Special School - the second stage of a $4.7m redevelopment has provided six new general learning areas, all completed and ready for the start of the 2012 school year;
Ross Park Primary - the fourth stage of a $6m major redevelopment was handed over ready for the new school year, which is the final stage of a complete modernisation of the school;
Centralian Middle School - the completion of Stage 2 of the $5.5m refurbishment of the school;
Sanderson Middle School’s $1m upgrade was substantially completed with the new covered outdoor area under construction ready for Term 2, 2012;
Casuarina Senior College has a new state-of-the art science block with three new laboratories, handed over and ready for the start of the new school year. The final works of the $5m upgrade will be completed by the end of February 2012;
significant maintenance projects for a total of $2.7m to upgrade facilities at Driver, Jingili and Wagaman as part of the $33m invested to repair and maintain government schools; and
work on the new $11.7m Nemarluk School at Alawa commenced in 2011 and is substantially complete, with final landscaping in progress ready for the school to open in Term 2, 2012.
The CLP probably does not need reminding of their opposition to the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for schools through the BER. However, it might be timely to consider how our schools and our economy would look if the CLP had had their way and rejected the Commonwealth offer to inject $270m into Territory schools and businesses.
This government has also made significant investments in building new schools with Darwin Middle School, Rosebery Primary School, Rosebery Middle School, Alparra High School, Baniyala Garrangali School, Bonya School, Manyallaluk School and Emu Point School.
All existing middle and senior schools have also received significant investments in upgrades in recent years. As well as this, government primary and group schools received $300 000 each to upgrade facilities in this term of government.
Investment in infrastructure has been further complemented by significant investment in information and communications technology to ensure our schools are as modern as any other Australian school. There are now 1600 access points providing wireless network across all government schools and DET offices. Over 8000 computers have been installed in Northern Territory schools under the Digital Education Revolution and NT-funded computer programs. Desktop video conferencing services are also available for all teachers and staff. Additionally, cutting edge innovation is under way at Nightcliff Middle School where the Apple Learning Centre, based at the Nightcliff education precinct, commenced operation in July 2011. In the six months from July to December 2011, ICT for Learning provided 51 professional learning workshops, with 657 educators participating in more than 1200 hours of professional development.
Excellent teachers and principals: the importance of teachers cannot be underestimated in our quest for improved outcomes for Territory children. Since 2002, the Territory government has employed 407 additional teachers. The impact of these extra teachers extends across the Territory in ensuring appropriate teacher to student ratios, and additional support personnel such as counsellors, behaviour management specialists, English as a Second Language specialists, PE and health specialists, and ICT support.
This government formally recognised the high professional status of teachers in the community with the establishment of the Teacher Registration Board, and continues to provide ongoing professional development for teachers. Territory teachers are the equal of any other teacher in Australia and, as government, we will continue to support them to further their careers.
The Northern Territory is a place where the delivery of education involves unique challenges. We have the largest percentage of Indigenous students and the largest percentage of very remote schools. Leading a school with these sorts of complexities requires quality educators. In recognition of the diverse nature of their work, the department is working in conjunction with the Office of Public Employment to increase the recreation leave of principals in remote areas from five weeks to six weeks. The Henderson government values teachers and provides them with a range of incentives and support programs that recognise the crucial role they play in our community.
In 2011, the Centre for School Leadership, Learning and Development was established in partnership with CDU. The centre provides range of programs and events designed to improve leadership and teaching within our schools, including school leaders programs, principal and teacher orientation, and development programs for high performing principals - Highly Accomplished and Lead Teacher Program, otherwise known as HALT. The centre also provides support programs to teachers such as cross-cultural training, research and development, and collaboration with other jurisdictions’ professional associations and universities to develop the highest quality programs and services for Northern Territory teachers and principals.
Our biggest challenge in providing a stable and sustainable teaching workforce lies with remote schools, and we continue our efforts to be selective in who is recruited to remote schools, and reduce teacher turnover. In order to address this challenge, the Remote Teacher Service has been established which works to ensure that our remote schools are staffed with quality teachers who continue their placement in remote schools for a period of three years.
Another important element of building a sustainable and stable Territory workforce is the Indigenous Employment and Career Development Strategy which aims to develop 200 additional Indigenous teachers. Whilst it is in its early days, there are encouraging signs our investment in teachers through incentives and support is showing dividends, with student outcomes markedly improving in recent years. Teacher retention across the Territory has improved by 10% from 2010 to 2011, and in very remote schools by 13.6%.
Quality programs: the third factor in the equation of providing a vibrant education environment in which students will prosper is the provision of high-quality programs equal to the best in Australia. The government has been unequivocal in its focus on literacy and numeracy as a foundation for a quality education for all students in the Territory. To this end, I have engaged the head of the Australian Council for Educational Research, Professor Geoff Masters, who has provided me with a public report containing 15 strong recommendations, all of which the department has accepted and is in the process of implementing.
An important aspect of Professor Masters’ report is the need for greater emphasis on those very important early years on a child’s life that sets them up for lifelong learning, including the programs we currently have in place such as child and family centres, Families as First Teachers, and mobile preschools. Research has found that laying solid educational foundation in the early years of a child’s life will enable lifelong learning, especially with regard to literacy and numeracy. That is why the Department of Education and Training has made a commitment to look at improving the child to teacher ratio in those very important preschool classes.
Professor Masters acknowledges the establishment of a strong foundation for action that underpins DET’s strategic plan. He also identifies ways in which the system can improve, and proposes high priority actions to clarify and enhance current practices in order to improve literacy and numeracy outcomes.
An encouraging outcome of recent NAPLAN testing is that mean scale scores exceed Australian average cohort gains in 11 out of the 12 reportable domains and year levels. Principals and selected members of school leadership teams are currently undertaking a 12-month literacy and numeracy leadership program designed to enhance principals’ capabilities to embed effective whole-of-school literacy and numeracy teaching, learning, and assessment practices within their own school contexts.
At the other end of the spectrum, we have established Centres of Excellence in our senior secondary schools to ensure even more of our high-performing students have the opportunity to be challenged and extended. Centres of Excellence are now in place at Darwin High School, with 42 students studying maths, science and engineering; Casuarina Senior College, with 29 students in health sciences; Centralian Senior Secondary College, with this new established Centre for Excellence in Sustainable Futures and Solar Energy; and Palmerston Senior College has commenced operation as a Centre for Excellence in the Arts as of the start of the 2012 year.
The bottom line is when a child attends school every day they will get a great education. This government will not lessen its resolve to ensure every child enjoys a quality education and the opportunity for a prosperous life. In 2012, we will expand our commitment to attendance and reengagement with more officers on the ground in regions. This will bring to 31 the number of attendance and truancy employees across the Territory.
As a key component of the Every Child, Every Day strategy, the enrolment and attendance team has, through implementation of the amended Education Act, reengaged 151 students with school in its first six months of operation. This also includes 472 referrals, 151 students reengaged and 39 infringement notices have been issued to date. DET has invested a further $1m to create an additional 14 attendance and truancy officer positions, bringing the total number to 31.
Other initiatives which reinforce the importance of being at school include:
No School No Service agreements with local businesses implemented in Alice Springs, Katherine, Palmerston, Peppimenarti, Borroloola, Nhulunbuy, Groote Eylandt, Yirrkala and Milyakburra;
An exciting initiative commenced early in January when the first flexible school year trial kicked off at the beginning of the 2012 year with Gunbalanya operating on adjusted school terms and holidays. The school started three weeks earlier than its counterparts across the Northern Territory, and the community has embraced the concept with over 100 additional students attending the school during that period of early opening. I acknowledge my colleague, the member for Arafura, for her tireless efforts to ensure this program’s implementation and success. It is important to note this government acknowledges the efforts of the federal government and its work to improve school attendance. As a result, we are integrating the federal government’s SEAM initiative with the Northern Territory government’s Every Child, Every Day initiative, to support greater improvement in school attendance.
Another great initiative is the highly mobile student inclusion unit in Alice Springs, which is an innovative new model of schooling targeted at students aged between five and 12 years who travel to Alice Springs from outlying communities for short periods of time. The program will see information and communication technology used to connect students to their home school and peers, as well as offering creative and stimulating classroom activities designed to reengage students who may have had limited schooling.
The highly successful Clontarf and Girls Academies now cater for approximately 900 Indigenous males and 340 Indigenous girls across 13 schools, with 13 Clontarf and 10 Girls Academies in total. In 2012, Girls Academies will expand to a further three middle schools and one senior school in Darwin. We know the Clontarf model is a proven formula, and I am looking forward to seeing the same outstanding outcomes from our Girls Academy over the coming years.
We have also established a new reengagement centre at Palmerston Senior College to provide disengaged youth with support to reengage with education, or to pursue a pathway to training and employment. There are also Alice Outcomes, an alternative education annexe of Centralian Senior College, catering for those students not suited to mainstream schooling. This includes the Young Mums Program. We must continue to do what we can to support students in their education and pathway into employment because, without this support, these young Territorians will have very limited opportunities as an adult.
Territory kids are good kids. Schools across the Territory are full of students who are well behaved and focused on learning. Like all schools in all jurisdictions, there is a spectrum of behaviours ranging from unruly behaviours to very challenging behaviours that occur from time to time. The Northern Territory is no different, and an unfortunate reality is that some students in some of our schools will exhibit such challenging behaviours on occasions. Whilst extreme incidents involving serious physical assault are not common, and there is no evidence to suggest these behaviours are on the increase, I wish to state quite categorically, they will not be tolerated. As I have stated publically, I am advised there are approximately 12 such incidents per year of student violence towards teachers, and three to four of parents against teachers.
Nonetheless - this should read 34 000 students; it says 40 000 in the statement - there are 34 000 in our system and approximately 43 000 including all systems; so that, I understand, is a typo, so I will repeat. Nonetheless our 34 000 students and teachers are entitled to be safe in their schools and the government will do whatever is necessary to ensure this is the case. To address extreme behaviour in schools, DET is implementing all 11 recommendations of the review into extreme student behaviour.
This review was conducted by a working group that comprised representatives of the Australian Education Union, the Association of School Education Leaders, and Urban and Remote School Principals. The recommendations included:
employing three new positive behaviour advisor positions to help schools with de-escalating extreme behaviour;
The Department of Education and Training already has a budget of $14.6m and 148 staff to support student behaviour in schools, but we can always do more. The chief executive of the department has given a public commitment to look at increasing the number of counsellors to deal with incidents of extreme behaviour and youth suicide prevention.
In support of teachers in classrooms, DET will continue to deliver its online professional learning courses. Some 270 school-based staff have already completed the autism spectrum disorder online course, with 84% of participants being classroom teachers. At the end of 2011, a second course; Understanding and Managing Behaviour, was offered with an uptake of 24 participants over the Christmas period.
A new transition reengagement centre will also be established in Darwin to co-locate a range of programs and services to respond to an increasing need for support for young people aged 12 to 17 years where mainstream schooling is not a suitable model for them. It could be as a result of their behaviour or, perhaps, their living situation, as well as for students who, over the years, have not gone to school enough and have just fallen too far behind. The centre will use a range of facilitators including teachers, trainers, youth workers, social workers, health workers and mentors. There will be a strong focus on building students’ literacy and numeracy skills to lead them into pathways to employment.
This centre will complement the effort under way in Alice Springs through the Edmund Rice Foundation as part of the Alice Springs Youth Hub. Further effort in Alice Springs is also in place with the Alice Springs Youth Action Plan and wraparound education services. There has been $0.5m of funding allocated to support ongoing Youth Action Plan initiatives and responsive projects. Ongoing projects include the employment of nine additional support staff.
Whilst high-level academic achievement and continuation to university or further study is suited to many Territory students, there is also a significant cohort who are more suited to further training and employment. As a government which has been working to meet the challenge that strong economic and population brings, we have placed further emphasis on training pathways and education, and have renamed the Year 12 Certificate to the Northern Territory Certificate of Education and Training. A key goal of the department is to support a smooth transition from school to work.
To this end, the department has established an industry engagement and employment pathways unit using VET in Schools team and the Corporate Engagement Team. The unit will ensure closer engagement between schools, the department and local industry through joint involvement in pre-VET industry exposure programs, industry engagement with teachers and students and, in some cases, direct financial and material support for schools from industry. Its impetus comes from Territory 2030 which exhorts the government to increase the delivery of VET in Schools programs across the Territory, and to develop new relationships between industry and the education and training system.
Preliminary data indicates that in 2011 there were 1987 students undertaking VET in Schools. Of these, 241 students have undertaken VET in the Middle Years program, 275 students are in the Work Ready program, focused on getting them ready to go straight into a job, 930 students placed in structured work placement across the Territory and, in 2012, 191 courses will be funded in 60 schools.
Additionally, the government has established the Beyond School Guarantee, which ensures students who attend school regularly are, first, put on a pathway to training, employment or university and, second, supported to succeed on that pathway.
Training pathways starting at school will continue to be a strong focus and will always ensure strong connections with local industry to ensure we are creating more workers where there will be jobs, especially in the skilled area.
In conclusion, I need to say if you want to see proof of just how good our Territory schools are, you just needed to be standing in the great hall of Parliament House a few weeks ago at the NT Board of Studies Awards. I attended the ceremony where the Northern Territory’s top students were awarded prizes and scholarships to help celebrate their achievements. These young Territorians did as well as top students from around the rest of Australia, and that was a reflection on the quality of our schools, our teachers and our principals. These students, in the main, went to school every day and they received top education equal to anywhere else.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am proud of the achievements of this government and our investment in tackling the issues head on.
I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Deputy Speaker, when I read this statement last night, I first wondered why the government was bringing on this education statement. I figured, first of all, it was the minister’s approach to see if he could extract our policy out of us to see what answers we would bring forward. I am on to you, minister, I am on to you. However, I digress.
No doubt the government would have you believe everything is rosy within the Education Department. The minister was right when he said we have great schools and great teachers. However, are we turning out the very best results in academic achievement and attendance rates in our schools that we possibly could? The sad truth, however, is remarkably different. One only has to turn to DET’s most recent annual report to point out a few failures, or just listen to people working at the coalface delivering education, or parents, or carers.
Just as the minister has the right to provide his opinion of education in the Territory, so do I. In doing so, I will point out just a few items within DET’s latest report just to ensure I am not accused of making things up.
In Year 7, writing achievement, very remote schools, only 17.2% are achieving the national minimum standard, and that is on page 120. Year 9 writing achievement, provincial schools, 75.6% of NT students are achieving the national minimum standard as compared with 84.2% nationally, and that is also on page 120. Year 9 writing achievement, very remote schools, only 13.2% are achieving the national minimum standard, page 120 - only 13.2%. Year 3, reading achievement, all schools, 69.7% of NT students are achieving the national minimum standard as compared to 93.9% nationally. That is a difference there - 69.7% of NT students compared to 93.9% nationally. Year 5, reading achievement, all schools, 64.4% of NT students are achieving the national minimum standard as compared with 91.3% nationally. Also, on page 50, figure 30, Years 8 to 12 apparent retention from 2006 to 2012 sees a reduction from 43.5% in 2006 down to 33% in 2010 when it comes to Indigenous students.
I could, and I will, be accused of cherry picking through the results, because there are some in our urban schools that are far better. On page 107, figure 90, Year 3, reading achievement, 2010, by geolocation - this one interests me because it gives you the breakdown between Australia and the Northern Territory. When it comes to very remote areas, the Northern Territory scores 36.5% compared to 58.6% for very remote schools nationally. Figure 91, Year 5 reading achievement for 2010 by geolocation, very remote, nationally is 47.3% and, yet, the Northern Territory is 23.4%. I am comparing these with very remote areas throughout Australia so it is not confusing things with urban areas - but very remote. Figure 9.2, Year 3 numeracy achievement 2010 by geolocation, 60.5% for very remote, while in the Northern Territory, 37%. There are remarkable differences, so things are not as rosy as the minister might point out in many of these areas.
As I said previously, before I am accused of cherry picking, I also suggest the minister cherry picked his argument by not addressing some of the more challenging results, although I will admit he often speaks about the challenges of remote education in this House, and I certainly agree with that analogy.
It was also interesting last night listening to the federal minister assisting with Education, Brendan O’Connor, on Lateline when, on being questioned in regard to an OECD report on education standards going backwards in Australia, his answer was that they have doubled education funding in the last four years.
It is always the same answer with Labor ministers, whether federal or local. It is the same answer we receive in this House every time an issue is raised: ‘We have spent far more money on that’. Have you thought for one moment about how the money is spent? What are the outcomes? Can existing programs be run differently if they are not working? It is not always about the amount of money being spent; however, that is the only answer you get here from Labor ministers. Do they teach you that stuff?
That same OECD report details how Australia has fallen behind the rest of the world in the last 10 years. Incidentally, during the last 10 years, we have seen Labor governments in place in most states and territories. Maybe there is something in that. Labor has always promoted the fact it is better at education than conservative governments; however, perhaps that is not the case. Perhaps it is not the fact they promote. Perhaps the facts are just as this report indicates: Labor governments around Australia have overseen a dramatic reduction in academic achievement in the last 10 years compared to the rest of the world.
Last night, I was up very late trying to read as much of the Gonski report as I could before my eyelids became heavier than the report. No, I have not read all 319 pages. I have read the executive summary, the conclusion, all 41 recommendations and 26 findings. To back up my last statement, I quote directly from the executive summary in the Gonski report where it says:
So far, I have found the Gonski report one of the easiest government reports I have ever read. I am not 100% sure why, perhaps it is purposely done that way. Nonetheless, it is a good read and I congratulate David Gonski and the rest of the panel for their extensive work on the review on school funding in Australia. I talk about the Gonski review because the minister alluded to it in his speech. In what I have read so far - and while I recognise there could be some good outcomes in regard to school funding in the Northern Territory - the Commonwealth has, perhaps, left us more questions than answers given its response to date. There has been no guarantee it will accept the recommendations or it will fund the $5bn in additional costs. In fact, I heard minister Shorten last night on Q&A suggest the proposed surplus of $5bn is more important than education.
While we can talk about education in the Northern Territory, both sides having their own opinion on the matter, the future will, no doubt, come down to many factors including whether or not the Commonwealth will accept and fund the recommendation of the Gonski review and, moreover, at what detriment to the non-government sector?
It needs to be pointed out on the basis of this report, potentially, every non-government school is on the private school hit list. What can the Northern Territory government do to protect schools such as the Palmerston Christian School, St Joseph’s in Katherine, St Philip’s in Alice Springs or the Essington School Darwin? How will the Northern Territory government manage the issue in a jurisdiction where there is a real two-speed economy if the Commonwealth accepts the funding model where means tests are applied to parents who send their children to private schools?
I can tell you not everyone who sends their children to private schools in the Northern Territory is well off. Currently, government funding favours public schools, as it should when all government funding is taken into account. Government recurrent expenditure per government school student was $14 380 and, for the non-government school students, $7427. Those figures were taken from the Productivity Commission 2012.
The Gonski panel has recommended the government develop and implement a new schooling resources standard (SRS) and suggested it would cost the Commonwealth, state, and territory governments $5bn to implement. The funding model proposed is to compromise the basic entitlement for all students, and additional loadings for students who cost more to educate such as Indigenous students and students with special needs. This could be good news for the Northern Territory. However, as I have already pointed out, the federal government has not committed to the estimated additional cost associated with implementing the proposed SRS, to a time frame to delivery, nor to the future of existing funding arrangements beyond 2013. The only commitment the government has made in its initial response is to speak with state and territory governments and their Education ministers.
The critical issue of indexation remains unresolved. The Gonski panel recommended a new independent authority be created to develop a new indexation process. The government still has not promised to maintain the current levels of indexation in response to the review, so some schools could face funding cuts in real terms. There is a real threat that many schools will have their current levels of funding frozen, resulting in them going backwards over time. Despite federal Labor’s promise that schools will not have funding taken away from the current levels, there is no guarantee that funding will ever increase at the rate they are now. The federal government has also failed to give any guarantee that school fees will not rise should they implement their proposed model.
Given the period the federal government has had to respond to this review, the next steps it proposes are, at best, ambiguous. Current funding arrangements expire at the end of 2013. Schools need certainly about their precise funding assistance for the future. It is unrealistic to expect a new funding model and method of indexation could be agreed by the start of 2014. I call on minister Burns to lobby hard in the interests of the Northern Territory, and do not do what his boss does and roll over to his federal colleagues every time.
The idea of a national funding model with a basic entitlement for all students also has merit as a concept. However, the devil will be in the detail, as it is always with Labour administrations. Preliminary modelling has been conducted by the Gonski panel to determine the cost of a new schooling resources standard. However, the modelling reports do rely on My School and NAPLAN data. I have serious problems, as have my Coalition colleagues and education stakeholders, who have previously raised a number of concerns about using NAPLAN and My School data for the purpose of benchmarking resources. However, more consultation will need to occur on that particular issue.
It is important to remember the issue of resourcing is only one outcome linked to students achievements. Other issues such as teacher quality, parental engagement, and school autonomy, as far as I can see, were not considered in great depth by the panel. As I said, I still have not read the entire report, but that is what I have seen. These issues have a greater impact on student achievement over and above anything else, including how much governments spend on education. All of the OECD countries which are achieving better results than Australia, such as our Asian neighbours, actually spend less on education as a percentage of GDP than Australia does now.
In considering the future of our schools, we should resist the temptation to allow the debate to generate to one simply about money and resources, when there are other important factors relevant to the future of how our schools operate. Despite the federal government’s rhetoric to the contrary, many parents will remain concerned about the very real possibility of a return to the private school hit list. What are the real costs?
The conclusion from the Gonski review is worth repeating in this House and, with your indulgence, I will read the conclusion:
Madam Deputy Speaker, although it could be accused of being a motherhood statement, I would find it hard for anyone to disagree with the sentiment of that conclusion. Time will tell how seriously the federal government takes this document and so, too, the consequences for the Northern Territory. I openly welcome additional resources for schools with low academic achievement. I welcome additional funding for students with special needs. However, I caution on the ramifications for our private schools and the cost implications on parents and carers in a jurisdiction quickly becoming famous for being the most expensive place to live in Australia.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Deputy Speaker, to listen to the other side talking about education, especially about education outcomes, is a joke, considering that the first time we saw Year 12 students coming out of schools from remote areas was under this Labor government, not under the CLP government. Even their own review, which had recommended to put high schools in remote communities, was abandoned because it would cost too much. Anyway, it was Indigenous kids - who cares? What was important was a clear voice in the northern suburbs.
The reality is, it is the Labor government which invested money in education. It is the Labor government that invested money in the public education system. It is the Labor government, and our Labor government, that invested money in education, not only in the urban environment, but in remote communities. I remember very well how proud I was to visit Kalkarindji, to see that remote school producing the very first Year 12 graduates of Indigenous students. The Gonski report - and quite rightly so - identified some of the shortcomings with our system and we have to address them as a matter of urgency. It is the real thing; it is Labor governments, state or territories or federal, that have invested heavily in education and will continue to do so.
It is the No 1 priority of our government. Across my portfolios, there are countless examples of the importance of education and developing a healthy, prosperous and vibrant Territory, and of where we are growing our own for the future of the Territory - a future that is extremely bright. Our government is committed to providing what the people of the Territory have asked for in Territory 2030, because we went out and asked the people want they wanted. We, or some bureaucrats, did not decide what the people should have or should get. We actually asked them what they would like us to provide for them. What they wanted is for Territorians to meet or exceed the national standards for education and training; education to be promoted as a lifelong goal and opportunity; and Territorians to have access to a world-class education system. The delivery of this commitment by the government is evident across all of my portfolios and I will speak about them in more detail now.
With regard to Health, this government is very proud of the opportunities we have created for school leavers to join the health workforce and to be employed in careers that will improve the lives of their communities and families. In February last year, we celebrated the commencement of the Northern Territory’s full medical program, a cooperation between the Territory’s Labor government and the federal Labor government. The Australian government made a significant investment of $27.8m for a new medical school facility at Charles Darwin University for first- and second-year medical students, and expanded the facilities on-site at Royal Darwin Hospital.
This initiative marks a major milestone in the history of Northern Territory health and education. This is the first time ever Territorians can study medicine in the Northern Territory and graduate as doctors. They can go to the school and become a doctor without leaving the Territory.
The school leavers pathway commenced with a new undergraduate Bachelor of Clinical Science Program that leads 12 students into a sponsored medical program. These students will graduate with a double degree in Science from Flinders/CDU and medicine from Flinders on completion of their studies. The four-year medical program commenced with 24 postgraduate students last year - all Territorians fully sponsored by both the Australian and Northern Territory governments, with their university HECS fees covered. In return, the students are bonded to work for Northern Territory Health for two years at the completion of their studies.
Ten of these students are Indigenous, and we are delighted to welcome them, because we know very well if we grow our own they will stay here, especially the local Indigenous people with extreme knowledge in culture and traditions who will be a valuable tool in our health system. Last week, I welcomed the new intake of medical students for 2012 with a further class of 24 students. This is the first time in the Territory we have four years of medical school training, with the continuation of our program for third- and fourth-year students from South Australia and James Cook University at Royal Darwin Hospital.
A full medical program is great news for the Territory. It will provide great opportunities for our children to access a world-class education, a local secure supply of skilled workforce knowledgeable of our challenges and culture, and a magnet for experienced medicos and academics to come to the Territory to train and develop our future doctors. My department is working closely with education and workforce providers to ensure a sustainable nursing and midwifery workforce through the development of multiple education pathways and employment pipelines. This includes: engaging with the Territory high schools and senior college students and career advisors; the development of a school work experience program for future health professionals; support for Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander students, nurses and midwives through study assistance and cadetships; and study assistance programs for undergraduates and postgraduate nursing and midwifery education.
Many times the CLP asked what outcomes we have achieved. Well, since June 2001, we have employed an additional 720 nurses in our hospitals and health centres throughout the Territory. This has brought the total number of nursing staff to just over 2000 by June 2011. We have also strengthened oral health service education by introducing the Certificate III in Dental Assistant training. This is now in its second year, with four trainees located in Darwin Dental Clinic. The department is the only provider of this training in the Territory, and the establishment of this program is an example of the commitment to local workforce education development.
As we know, one of the foundations of building opportunities for our children is to encourage them to participate in education, and that encouragement starts at the family level. This is why it is critical to support families so we can help to ensure that children get the most they can get out of school and develop a solid education. Part of ensuring our children get the most from school is ensuring they have a supportive home life. My Department of Children and Families provides support to Territory children and families.
Let me start with a progress update on building education in my electorate: Alawa Primary School has received $125 000 worth of new play equipment, shade structure, amphitheatre and pathways, and $1.9m for a new library; Dripstone Middle School has received $200 000 worth of new shade structure and outdoor sporting facilities; and Nakara Primary School has received a $150 000 upgrade in storm water infrastructure and water reticulation, and $2.4m funding for assembly area coverage and a new canteen.
These three schools had successive CLP members, and some of these members actually were elevated to the position of minister for Education. Those three schools had not received any attention for many years. The first time a significant amount of money was spent was following the 2001 election when the Territory got the first Labor government, and I became the local member. I was very proud and very pleased to be able to lobby the government to provide this money to upgrade these three schools that now have become the envy of other schools in the Territory.
Going back to child protection, we have to support families in order for children to be able to go to school and to recognise the value of education and continue their education. The CLP government had a budget of $7m for child protection services. Under the current Labor government, our budget starts at $182m. That is a real commitment to build strong and healthy families which have the capacity to capitalise on the education services the Territory has to offer. To put that into perspective, child protection services have been expanded by the Northern Territory Labor government to include family support services, youth services, out-of-home care services and homelessness.
We have created the position of the Children’s Commissioner for the first time in the Northern Territory, ensuring the wellbeing of vulnerable children. We have grown the workforce of the Department of Children and Families from around 100 staff in 2001 to over 500, and will continue to support the growth of services to children and families in the Territory.
On top of that, we provide education to our staff. I was very pleased yesterday to award the first Certificate in Child Protection to eight of our staff members who graduated from the Flinders University program for remote health with emphasis on child protection.
Last year, we reformed the Education Act to better help our system connect and help students and families who have not been able to see the value of education. For the first time ever, the new legislation makes it mandatory for parents of students to attend compulsory meetings about the child’s attendance, enrolment, or participation.
The Australian government announced the new income management initiative as a non-discriminatory measure in November 2009, which included child protection measures, in addition to the management of child neglect. Under this measure, the Department of Children and Families child protection officers can make a decision that Centrelink manages 70% of a person’s income support when determining that poor use of financial resources is contributing to child neglect or other negative outcomes for a child. Income management, combined with enhanced family support, provides an opportunity to address child neglect issues and, in turn, address any education issues that might be present.
Non-attendance can also be a trigger for child protection notification which will trigger a suite of resources being made available to support the child and their family, if required. I am very pleased to tell you that, at this stage, we have 140 families on income management. Now that people realise we mean business, they talk to us before they fall into the trap and into income management. They want to negotiate and work with us to address the issues which might result in child neglect or the lack of education for their children.
Another positive step towards our commitment to education can be seen in the Alice Springs Youth Hub which was announced as part of the Alice Springs Youth Action Plan. The Alice Springs Youth hub is on the site of the former ANZAC Hill High School. It was established to support and coordinate an integrated approach to youth services and programs in Alice Springs by providing a youth-friendly centralised site for youth services and organisations in Alice Springs, a venue or base for youth events and activities, space for case conferencing, coordination and planning, alternate education programs, and work and skill programs.
In January 2011, the Alice Springs Family Support Centre, the Youth at Risk team, the Alice Springs Youth Services coordinator and the Youth Street Outreach teams from the Department of Children and Families relocated to the Youth Hub. An amount of $1.1m has been committed for capital development of the site. The capital works will improve this ability access and ...
Mrs LAMBLEY: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: We lack a quorum. Ring the bells.
Thank you, we have a quorum.
Mr VATSKALIS: In January 2011, the Alice Springs Family Support Centre, the Youth at Risk team, the Alice Springs Youth Centre coordinator, and the Youth Street Outreach teams from the Department of Children and Families relocated to the Youth Hub. An amount of $1.1m had been committed for capital development of the site. The capital works will improve disability access, convert classrooms into office and meeting spaces, and provide for alternative education services. The Alice Springs Youth Services coordinator provides an overall coordination role.
Social enterprise is an important part of the hub, with the community consultation group for the social enterprise caf meeting regularly. The caf, when established, will provide training and employment opportunities for young people. Last year, the hub was the venue for the Northern Territory Youth Week celebrations including the opening event. Over 350 young people attended the celebrations and activities held during the week.
The Youth Hub also held a series of youth-specific events during September 2011 as part of Alice Desert Festival 2011. The events included the BOOM!, fair, dance and live music club nights. Young people were involved in the organisation of the events. They formed committees and took ownership of the events. youTHang attracted approximately 1000 visitors and participants during two weekends of activities.
Alternate education programs also operate from the hub. In February 2011, a youth worker from DCF and a teacher from the Department of Education and Training commenced alternate education programs. From July last year, Edmund Rice has operated an educational outreach program. This program focuses on young people disengaged from school. Edmund Rice uses teachers and youth workers to deliver education programs to young people.
The Family Responsibility Program was announced by the Northern Territory government in 2008 as a statutory program to improve parental responsibility and control for children and young people involved in antisocial behaviour, including truancy and offending. The legislation provides for six government agencies to require parents to enter into family responsibility agreements to improve their parental control over their child or adolescent involved in antisocial behaviour. Failure to comply with an agreement can result in an application to the court for an inquiry into family circumstances for a family responsibility order.
The Northern Territory government provided new funding in 2008 for the establishment of two dedicated family support centres in Darwin and Alice Springs to provide the requisite case management and family support for young people and for their parents, carers, or families subject to a family responsibility agreement. It also has a co-located senior teacher from the department of Education to assist with links to school services and truancy programs.
The Northern Territory government will be allocating $25.2m this financial year to deliver reforms to the child protection and family services system, including enhancing the family support system.
The Department of Education and Training is leading the work with the Australian government around the establishment of integrated children and family centres. The Northern Territory was allocated five child and family centres under the National Partnership Agreement on Indigenous Early Childhood. The sites for these centres are Palmerston, Yuendumu, Maningrida, Gunbalanya, and Ngukurr. DET has linked the establishment of the integrated child and family centres with a Strong Start, Bright Future initiative to form the integrated family service agenda. The Department of Children and Families is a key partner in this agenda. The first two sites for the Strong Start, Bright Future initiative are Groote Eylandt and Gunbalanya.
An integrated service model for child and family support centres built on existing service provision, addressing service gaps, increasing community capacity, and growing a skilled local workforce is being developed. An agreed strategic approach for future investment in child and family services is essential to expand support for vulnerable children and families. Agreement of support has been provided from key Northern Territory government agencies and the Australian government to establish child safety and wellbeing teams. The teams will be placed in the 20 Territory growth towns and will take a broad role in promoting child and community safety. This will allow more targeted discussion and planning for children and families requiring support or intervention.
It is this Northern Territory Labor government which laid down the dollars and initiatives required to address the needs of children in the Territory to support families or children to achieve their best. This is a challenging and far-reaching process, but the Northern Territory government is absolutely committed to making real changes for the wellbeing of Territory children and families. Children are the most vulnerable people in our society. All children are entitled to live safely and in circumstances that enable them to thrive physically, intellectually and emotionally.
When it comes to education, we are also delivering within my portfolio of Resources. I, as minister for Resources, offer a scholarship for young Territorians to undertake university studies in the earth science and geology, mining or petroleum-related profession fields. The scholarship offers financial assistance of $36 000 over a three-year period, and assistance with gaining local employment during university vacation. To date, two students have completed their studies under this scholarship and both are now working in the local exploration and mining industry. Education is about training our own, in responding to skill shortages in our mining and energy industries. Through building relationships and exposing undergraduate students to the opportunities on offer here in the Territory, we will attract them to come and stay and be valuable members of our community.
Fisheries research and aquatic resources management have also provided places for numerous work experience students who are interested in a career in fisheries. Departmental staff also participate in Science Week, run by CSIRO, where they have given presentations on aspects of fisheries science to a group of schoolchildren. Marine Rangers training, in conjunction with Charles Darwin University and the Water Police - nationally accredited Fisheries Compliance (Seafood Industry) Certificate II has been very successful. This course was run in 2009 and 2010 for some 44 Indigenous male rangers. The course in 2011 has been run for 12 Indigenous female rangers.
The Fisheries Indigenous Development Unit has also delivered school talks to primary school classes about the roles of Fisheries and Marine Rangers. In 2010, their presentation was delivered to Indigenous students at Jingili Primary School, in conjunction with Larrakia Rangers.
I now turn to Primary Industry and education. The Department of Resources’ Pastoral Production team provides technical advice and assistance to producers in the general community, which includes schools. In particular, we have had an ongoing association with the Girraween Primary School over the past two to four years. Since the establishment of Taminmin High School, the Department of Resources’ pastoral officers have had a continuous advisory role in the areas of primary production, animal production, weed control, and pastures. Each year, several students undertake work experience at the Douglas Daly Research Farm with our extension officers. Douglas Daly Research Farm also hosts day tours for students from Taminmin College.
Beatrice Hill Farm has also provided many work venues for VET classes from Taminmin College in such activities as artificial insemination, weaning, branding, and other animal husbandry procedures over many years.
The department provided technical input and equipment into the Alawa Primary School Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association rearing project in 2009. Department of Resources’ officers also assist work experience students from interstate universities who undertake the practical component of their studies.
In conclusion, education is a fundamental component of the Territory 2030 strategy, and the Territory is well placed to deliver a comprehensive and integrated education system that supports children to access a world-class education right here in the Territory. For the first time, a child can go from preschool to becoming a doctor in the Territory, thanks to the initiatives of this Labor government, and children and families have access to support where needed to ensure that children have the ability to capitalise on the educational opportunities that exist under our government.
Madam Speaker, education is a right, and this right is provided to all children in the Territory. It does not matter if they live in Darwin, Alice Springs, Katherine, Yuendumu, Yirrkala or Ngukurr. Our government is the first government to extend secondary education to more students in the Northern Territory. In comparison, the previous CLP government refused to spend the money in the rural and remote areas. They refused to establish high schools in rural and remote areas. The first time we saw Year 12 Indigenous students coming out of secondary school was under the first term of this Labor government. Education is a right - a right for every child, and our government will never deny this right to our children.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, there was an education statement during the August sittings last year, where I spoke briefly on the schools in my electorate and issues and challenges they face. I find it interesting that, less than six months later, we have another statement. I have to ask the question: why? What has happened that has cause for another statement?
That aside, I will comment again on the educational issues in the rural area, as there are issues as we continue to grow and expand. I see no real reference in this statement which is not unexpected, but disappointing. In my electorate there is Bees Creek Primary School, Sattler Christian School, Humpty Doo Primary School, St Francis of Assisi School, Taminmin College, and Middle Point School. They are excellent schools with excellent teaching and support staff, all producing excellent results with students, despite sometimes not receiving the same level of government fairness and equity, in my opinion, as their city cousins.
I have much to do with the schools, and enjoy going to the schools for various events such as assemblies, Harmony Day, meetings, ftes and all manner of fun activities. It amazes me always at the extent of the timetable of events at these schools and the volume of activities in sport, arts, culture, excursions, theatre, trips interstate and overseas and then, of course, there is the schoolwork. The teachers do a remarkable job and sometimes I wish I had the schooling of today’s time, instead of the strict and narrow teaching I received from the primary school I attended. Then, there are the councils with the many parents who give their time freely and work hard to make their schools better places for students and teachers.
In the statement, I noted positive learning centres are talked about on page 20. Palmerston Positive Learning Centre is severely under-resourced and, whilst Taminmin College did finally manage to gain access for some of their students late last year, the centre could only take about 25% of students requiring this service. So, the other 75% of the students who needed this service had to miss out at a time when they probably needed this service the most. Clearly, this is not good enough and I ask the minister for Education to look at the matter of positive learning centres and to start really working hard on a separate centre for the rural area as, sadly, there is a need and it is high time the government addressed this urgent need for our rural students and families.
The minister also talked about professional learning, also on page 20. This is also an area that is under-resourced. Schools are currently funded for relief teachers for about 1.5 days of professional development per year. In light of the implementation of the national curriculum, there needs to be additional professional development funded to give teachers sufficient skills and training to ensure successful implementation. Also, national professional standards for teachers are due to be implemented next year, 2013, and the same deal applies; that the success of this will require additional resources as there will be a high requirement for mentors for graduate probationary teachers, and also a significant amount of evidence collection required. Additional funding for professional development resources and relief teachers to allow experienced teachers to undertake a significant additional workload in mentoring young teachers will be critical.
In reference to the transitional re-engagement centre to be established in Darwin, there would be a need for one of these centres in the Palmerston and rural areas as well. Again, I ask the minister to take this on board when addressing the current and future needs of the rural area schools.
Over the last 12 months, there have been some improvements in regard to the progress with the Taminmin College facilities. I particularly thank the council and the college, under the chairmanship of Beverley Ratahi, who has worked so hard at bringing improvements and securing what should have been coming to the school as a matter of course, given the size and the growth of that school over the last few years. However, there remains much work to be done and a whole lot more support from government, given the size of the school and what it means to the rural area - and I hope, what it means to government.
There needs to be extra resources given to the Special Education Centre, hard cover over the middle school play facility, and temporary canteen redevelopment, whilst permanent funding is being identified in the 2012-13 Budget. The oval should be taken care of this Dry Season, I hope, but the school and the college needs more classrooms still, in particular, science laboratories and an auditorium. The college is bursting at the seams with the numbers, and I urge the minister and the government to continue to listen to the council and provide more resources and improvements in infrastructure for this college.
I read with interest the last paragraph in the statement about proof of how good our schools are by the number of Board of Studies Awards a few weeks ago in Parliament House. I take nothing away from the award recipients, whose awards were, I am sure, well earned and well deserved. However, many students do not receive these types of awards and some students struggle each day just to get to school.
In this regard, I have written recently to the minister for Education asking why two families in my electorate are not receiving transport support, according to the department’s own code, given that they are special needs and attend the Palmerston Special Education Unit. I hope a reply will be positive, as I know both families and they are good families. Like all parents, they want the best for their children, but are struggling a bit with the mixed messages from the department in regard to this transport and perceived lack of support.
Finally, I bring to the minister’s attention Middle Point School out towards Fogg Dam, and how they just cannot get anyone’s attention to help them fix the boggy section right outside the front of their school. In the Wet Season, when the school bus arrives, it pulls up right in the middle of the bog area, as that is the only place to stop safely. I have not written to the minister, but perhaps I will now as the school is not getting the attention it needs. It might seem a little thing, but when a student is in a wheelchair and another one is visually impaired, it becomes a serious safety issue - and that should be one of the issues which should be of concern to government.
Madam Speaker, that is all I have to say on this statement at this point of time.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, yes, it is an important statement and needs to be responded to in the context of the announcement of the findings of the Gonski review. There are two ways we would look at this statement but, in the light of the Gonski review, we then see there are two aspects. One is about the funding levels to address educational disadvantage. It is a fairly well-crafted, sophisticated model that directs financial assistance to the point of need. It has received mixed reviews from the private sector - some of them quite favourable - and there are some quite positive elements to the review. At its macro level, it is a report that gives food for serious consideration as to how to best address those specific needs, particularly the disabled in our education system.
The other aspect is a very important one. I have not heard it being referred to. It has been an ongoing concern of mine, and others. I note the context in which the Gonski review is set is there needs to be a response to those who are not thriving in our education system, and a response around a re-jigging of the funding - open for debate - and how that would apply. Would a local school such as Essington be better off or not? Would St John’s be better off or not?
All those discussions are theoretic because, in the absence of the commitment of the several billion dollars this requires, we really just have a debate which takes us into an area I will talk about in a moment. It is how this would be funded, how the shift then moves to Canberra away from the states, and how the states would have to fill in that gap - being the $5bn with 30% of it coming from the federal government and, from what I understand, 70% from the states. That is a different argument and story.
At the heart of the motivation for the Gonski review - the premise upon which this is based - is there are some problems in our education system nationally that need a response - funding re-jigging. However, the more important and troubling issue is the objective to reverse the slippage in Australia’s school performance. This theme has come up again and again; that the Australian system – for anyone who takes an objective view and measures our own national system against other comparative national systems, the evidence is plain. I am on the record in this parliament saying the Australian national system of education is losing its place in the rankings, and is moving in the wrong direction, year by year by year. That is a great concern. The Gonski review was established to, fundamentally, address that.
If that is the case - having acknowledged that the Australian education system, when you compare it against other education systems, is moving in the wrong direction in most areas – it is cause for concern. That is why the Gonski review was put in place. It proposes measures to address some of the problems we have in our system. If we dwell within the measures described to address educational disadvantage and how it would affect, say, St Philip’s for example, we might be losing sight of a greater concern and our debate will be in the wrong place. We need to move the education debate to a new level because if it is the case - and it is - you can talk about all the great schools. There are heaps of good schools. I have been through most of the schools in the Northern Territory - not most of the remote schools, unfortunately, but to a number of them.
This is nothing against the teachers. I have nothing but admiration for the teachers and the way they are working together. I came away impressed and inspired from all the schools I have been through. However, I noticed there are different approaches in different schools, and there was lack of cohesion and focus in the way in which the curriculum was being implemented. That is another comment. However, broader than that is the teaching profession is working extremely well and working hard. However, the system in which they are operating is not producing the goods. That is not a slight on the teachers, it is the tools with which they have been provided. This is not a slight on our students. We have students who are as bright as any other kid in any other system.
I will pick one country, Singapore. A number of years ago it noticed it was slipping in the international ratings in maths, in particular. What did it do? It spent more money on programs and made announcements - perhaps shifted this and that. It recognised it needed to improve; needed to change the way it delivered that part of the curriculum. So, they did a complete rebuild of the maths curriculum. They focused it, and it was quite explicit in its instruction.
If anyone has an interest in true reform in education, it comes around the construct of the curriculum. We have Labor and the left seducing people with language around reform such as the education revolution language. Education is not a revolution. That is not a revolution. Remember the clever little saying from the former Prime Minister: ‘The laptop is a tool box for the 21st century’ and all those catch phrases? He was talking about bits of equipment. A revolution in education is about the structure of how you organise your school - whether you are going to have it primary, middle school and high school, whether you are going to build a shed or something like that, or improve the facilities at the school. That is all fine but it does not, of itself, constitute a revolution in education. That is around facilities; that is around material things such as a laptop. Laptops, of themselves, equipment, do not improve education necessarily. What improves education is the quality of the teaching profession, adequately equipped and empowered to teach a quality curriculum which is focused.
Going back to Singapore, they noticed that, as a nation, they were slipping. They addressed it, not by building things and not by having smart ads and talking about laptops: ‘The kids need iPads, that will fix it’. They changed the curriculum and, now, that curriculum has borne fruit. They have seen, over a number of years, where they have moved up the rankings. It has borne fruit, there is evidence of it. So much so that other countries now look at that as an example. In the United States, you will go to many schools and they have what is known as the Singapore curriculum in maths. That is where we need to pitch our effort.
When we are talking about the Gonski review and about the statement made by the minister, it still does not have the debate in the right place if we want to effect real change.
The cheeky member for Johnston, who is the minister for Education, is often wanting to chide us, saying: ‘Oh where are your policies, where are your policies?’ Obviously, a smart fellow like that knows very well that the policy framework that was put out at the last election in 2008 - with others that followed in 2009 - are substantive. Go and ask those who have a genuine interest in education. They want to see the debate move into a different place.
What we presented in 2008 - and I will not go through it in case you do not have it and you have not done your homework; you are just playing games up there with the hollow men about what clever thing you can say in the parliament to try to embarrass the opposition because they do not have any policies. Do not worry about that, we know exactly where we are going with that, and it will be at a time we choose, and we will say what needs to be said. We are not in this for game playing; we are in this to ensure we pitch the response at the right time, so people know we are going to be moving education into a different place.
Genuinely, if you are going to use language like ‘revolution’ and ‘education’ or the ‘greatest reform since whatever in the Territory’ - and I can remember a review that was done some time ago. I remember the former minister for Education, Mr Stirling at the time, frothed at the mouth about how great this big review was. It was the best thing that ever happened in the Territory since whatever, a long time ago - make sure it is so far back in the past that it does not bear any possibility that he will not get any credit on the other side because it is in the sweet by and by.
There were a number of recommendations in that review which were overlooked - cherry picked a few and, now, that is behind us. The minister should go back and have a look at that review and just see what was in there. There are some pretty good initiatives which need to be revisited. Little hint - have a look at that body of work because it was quite an objective assessment of our education system and what could be put in place to strengthen it.
Going through the Gonski review, and taking what I believe is the real challenge to move the education debate to a new level, it is not about the funding that you deliver into the school so much; it is the recognising that what we are doing - perhaps it is the area of curriculum and strengthening, empowering our teaching profession - is, ultimately, where it goes.
Dr Ken Rowe who, sadly, passed away in the bushfires in Victoria, wrote a magnificent piece that identifies, through analysis, that the biggest difference made to the education outcomes of students is a teacher who is well equipped. That is a paper that I always have with me. You can talk about all sorts of programs, plans, and schemes that might be able to be advertised with glossy brochures to create a short-term impression but, at the end of the day, it is a quality, motivated, dedicated teacher equipped with a focus and explicit curriculum that makes the biggest difference.
It is not about the money that is spent. They have done assessments - spending more money equals better results. That seems to be the basic thinking of those largely from Labor; that money spent equals a good outcome. No, that is what you have spent. Studies have shown the spending of money has not produced educational improvement proportionately – it has not. There are benefits regarding classroom sizes, of course, but linking classroom size to better education outcomes does not correlate. It does not mean you do not have more appropriately sized classrooms but to say you are going to reduce the size of classes in order to establish that, does not actually stack up. It is easier on the teachers, but what they need is to be strengthened in power with the curriculum.
What comes out of the Gonski review - and what I do not really see in the minister’s statement - is what is quite clear and resonates through the policy positions which were put before the Territory community at the last election - and they still hold today. When I first came into parliament I went to a conference and the then minister for Education, Syd Stirling, said to the teachers in Alice Springs: ‘I have heard the saying that nothing really happens in education until it happens in a classroom to a child’. So, we can talk about all the big things that can happen, say, at Mitchell Centre and the programs that are operating from there, but all of that entire enterprise amounts to nothing if it does not happen for a child in a classroom; that is, learning.
What is clear is if Australia’s education system is slipping - that is clearly established by the Gonski review; that is why it, essentially, was put in place - and if the Northern Territory is the lowest performer in the nation, we have a greater level of urgency. The assumption then goes in the Gonski review that it is dollars that will fix the problem. However, once again, it is how the money would be spent. The money is spent beneficially in some ways, in this case. However, it is still an academic argument because, although the report has been responded to, no money has accompanied it. I believe the Prime Minister will be able to get some messages out of this. However, they will only be hollow if the $5bn tag, which surprised the Prime Minister, does not accompany the recommendations - it will just be academic.
What will come out of it though, sadly, will be, if not the money, teams of consultants which will go around and talk about it, create an impression that something is happening. There will, undoubtedly, be working parties that will go across the nation to the north and the south, the east and the west, and investigate. That will cost a great deal of money. I would love to spend that money in classrooms on things we know make a difference - the things that were described, minister, in our policies. I will touch on those in a moment.
The outcomes we wanted to see in the Gonski review are based on fixing the connection that wealth has to educational outcomes. Is there a direct correlation there? ‘Income, power or possession’, I believe, was the quote from it. I flag with the Treasurer and the shadow Treasurer that the $5bn identified to implement this scheme in 2014 as proposed, I understand, will consist of 30% from the federal government, and 70% from the states. This would be of interest for another level of debate which we had around health; that we would be then shifting responsibility increasingly to the Commonwealth - for education in this case - because with that contract there would have to be some obligation, buy-in, or agreement between the states, territories, and the federal government.
We start moving into a space where we really need to be very vigilant, because the only way education will improve is if we address governance of local schools, understanding the culture and tone of schools, and whether the department has the capacity to really understand the culture of the local school. The minister would well remember the conversation we have had on that front in the past. It is so important to really know the culture of a school and to match the management and support of that culture through the appropriate staff.
There is also the degree of autonomy - the decision is placed as far as possible into the hands of that local school community. In my view - obviously, not the view of Labor - that should increase. Our policies of 2008 point in that direction quite plainly and without reserve. You need to increase the autonomy of local schools, and I am very pleased that has now become a greater rallying cry for those who want real reform in education.
Then, it is the teaching standards. The teaching standards cannot be measured in any objective way unless there is an explicit, clear and focused curriculum. If we are really going to address change in education then that is where we need to be pitching our efforts. I still maintain that view.
What I take from Gonski is an alert that the Australian system is slipping; it says that quite plainly ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move an extension of time for the member to continue his remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr MILLS: … that the Australian system is slipping internationally; that if the Northern Territory is at the bottom of the ladder in this nation’s system, then we really have to do more than a statement which describes the existing framework. I believe we have been conned, as I said before, by the language around Labor’s involvement in education - such as ‘revolutions’, etcetera - when, in fact, it has been more about timetables, bus routes, and constructions. That is not to say they are bad things, but they actually do not constitute reform of themselves.
We need to be debating this seriously with educators, with the union, with parents - and I have conducted a number of forums. You need to have the decision-making closer to the place where those decisions are implemented. You might like to take a couple of initiatives, minister. COGSO is an enterprise which is recognising - and the language says this - that parents are really important in all of this and we are partners. You can say all of that, but let us actually put some money on the table.
For those people who have been elected on school councils, you know what you will get under the Country Liberal Party. This, by the way, is a policy that has been described - you should know it. You can do it too, by the way, I do not mind, because you have pinched a fair bit of good stuff that has come from this side - a place that does not have policy.
I am happy to review the amount, but COGSO needs to have additional funding. We have costed it before. They needed to have two extra staff to be able to provide direct support to school councils, particularly when it comes to the sourcing of grants and that kind of support for local school councils. All local members know what it is like to go to a school council meeting and to know those good souls who step up, put their hand up, and want to play their role. The weight on them is too great and there needs to be additional support for COGSO.
However, more than that, they need the provision of accredited training for anyone who serves on a school council which assists them understand how the budgets operate and their responsibilities - and training which is accredited. You are showing you are valuing these volunteers - we have costed this; it is a little idea you might want to use, minister – who are then able to be recognised and accredited. It would not cost much money if you make that investment in a volunteer, and give them real recognition and training. We have already costed it; I could pass it to you. They would be the type of people who would use those skills and invest it in other places in our community. It would be a win/win with little cost.
The other issue was an identification of an amount of money which would sit at the discretion of a council and a school principal to make decisions on how they would choose to use that in their local school. The Country Liberals will turn the focus directly and genuinely on the local school and empower and strengthen those making decisions; that is, the principal and the school council.
There are a number of other policies if you care to look, but none of us are really too worried about what you are saying, because when you go into an election these type of things are said.
The point of this is, if we are going to address the problem Gonski has put in place to address, we have to recognise the context: the nation’s system is slipping. If that be the case, we are in a particular situation where we need to be focused on the curriculum. This has been raised before your time, minister for Education. The need for the review of the curriculum was acknowledged and it was done, but the basis upon which that review was conducted was not as described here. I would like to hear from you about the basis of that review. At what stage is that review and what are the outcomes?
We need to ensure we, in a very genuine way, move decision-making closer to the local schools and ensure the department’s attention is in the classroom, and the teachers have a greater level of empowerment. They know they are not serving the interest of this enterprise which is in Mitchell Street, but that enterprise in Mitchell Street is there to serve their interest and turn it around. They will know, in practical ways, how that helps them.
Madam Speaker, I will finish by saying what I have said before. This statement is interesting with a number of good initiatives – that is fine. However, as I have said before, and as my colleague, the member for Brennan has done, we need to move the debate into a new place if we are going to effect any change. The Gonski report gives us a clear wake-up call that we have work to do and we need to be moving our discussion somewhere else which is much closer to the local school, greater autonomy, and a greater focus on what happens in a classroom.
Mr HAMPTON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I support the minister’s statement on education and, as it is also known, the art of teaching. This has been a great debate. We are very lucky in the Chamber to have quite a few ex-chalkies as members of parliament. That really enhances the debate we are having around education - as I said, the art of teaching. On our side of the House, the members for Barkly and Nhulunbuy have many years experience in the classroom, particularly in the Northern Territory. It is going to be an even better debate once we hear from some of the ex-chalkies in parliament.
All local members spend a great deal of time in schools in their own electorate talking to teachers, parents, and attending school council meetings. We all have picked up, over many years through our visits to our schools, all the issues, as local members do, particularly around education, schools, and funding - some of the issues the Gonski report has picked up on. I note the focus is on - I have not read all of the report; I do not know how many members have. As the member for Blain said, and the minister raised in his speech, when looking at the Australian schooling system, performance and outcomes, roles of funding partners and system, Australian average government school recurrent costs - all those issues are very important.
One part of the report I want to mention is the section about building momentum for change. That is probably one of the most important parts of the report and one I want to focus on. Minister, as a local member, I certainly look forward to getting a briefing from your department and speaking to your CEO about the report, but particularly how we continue to build that momentum for change. It is not a perfect system of education across our nation, but a very complicated and complex system. From a local member point of view, as a member with a bush electorate with many regional towns as well, I am very interested in getting that briefing and focusing particularly on that part of the Gonski report on building momentum for change.
My education journey has been varied, attending public schools in Alice Springs through Traeger Park and OLSH, and having the opportunity to actually go away to boarding school. That is one model looked at through the Cape York Partnership Program through Noel Pearson. It is talked about a lot. I know the member for Macdonnell, coming from a remote community, went to St Philip’s in Alice Springs to get her education. My own background, from public through to private school, certainly has helped me progress to a position where I can be in this House talking to these really important debates.
Boarding school was a great opportunity to get out, through The Gap of Alice Springs, to meet different people, to have access to some of the best teachers, facilities, a varied program of curriculum, and to explore those opportunities. To meet people from outside of your comfort zone is really important. That is a model in the Territory. There are great partnerships with colleges in Adelaide and Melbourne, through Melbourne Grammar, and Rostrevor College, and Emmanuel College in Adelaide. There are many young Indigenous kids taking up those opportunities, and it is great. It is a model for the Territory that can produce really good outcomes. If we talk about outcomes in education, that is one model I really would recommend. I always encourage families I know that are maybe finding it tough; their children may be getting mixed up in the wrong side of life in Alice Springs particularly. I encourage them and connect them to people I know in the boarding schools and colleges down south. It is not the answer, but it is certainly a really important option that parents living in remote and regional areas, particularly, should have.
Touching on what the member for Blain said, I agree about the unsung heroes. As I get around as the local member, I talk to teachers. I also think the assistant teachers are people who have very strong language and cultural knowledge and experience. Without many of these assistant teachers in our schools - whether they be in urban areas or in remote bush schools - the job for the teacher would be even more difficult. I acknowledge those assistant teachers with language skills, as I said, often with two or three different languages, with the knowledge of family and the knowledge of culture. Their roles in the schools have been very vital in getting those kids to school and keeping them there, but also assisting teachers.
School councils certainly play a very important role. I remember, some time ago, the Aboriginal support program used to be called ASSPA - I am not sure what the acronym stood for. That was one way of trying to engage Aboriginal parents into the school councils, by having some say in their children’s education. It was through the Commonwealth government at the time, but it was taken away some time ago. Those incentives to engage parents into school councils are very important. I believe any initiative like that to reengage parents, particularly Aboriginal parents, into that part of the school system is a good thing.
Turning to the minister’s statements, government believes every child must go to school every day if they are expected to learn and achieve. What this government is aiming to do is to get as many kids as possible to go to school every day so they can fulfil their potential in life. Schools work with parents and other community members in setting attendance targets. We know there are many causes of poor attendance and participation. Therefore, as the minister has outlined in his statement, we need a wide range of solutions. The Every Child, Every Day strategy sets out how the Department of Education and Training will change the patterns of enrolment, attendance, and participation of young Territorians.
We know we will only be able to turn around attendance and participation patterns if families, schools, and communities work together. As I said in the opening remarks of my statement, teachers are very important. Assistant teachers are equally important, as are school councils. However, without parents’ engagement and interests in their child’s education it makes things very hard.
At the same time, Every Child, Every Day recognises the diversity of people and places within the Northern Territory and is flexible in meeting local needs of individual children and young people. The evidence is strong that attending school regularly, finishing school, and going on to further education and training leads to better job prospects, higher incomes, and provides young people with more life choices. That is why it is compulsory in the Northern Territory for children and young people to attend school every day, to complete Year 10 and, then, take part in education until they turn 17 unless they are in full-time training or work.
Attending school and participating in training or work is so important that new innovative strategies have been developed to support communities, parents, principals, and staff to overcome some of those roadblocks to success. The importance is so great that both the Northern Territory and the Australian governments have introduced strong measures for parents who fail to make their children attend regularly, or participate after they had been provided with help and support. These strong messages include the need to engage in family responsibility agreements, and also the potential loss of income support and youth allowance, and a tougher system of fines.
As all speakers to this debate have said, attendance is very important. My role, as a local member, but also as a local person in Alice Springs, is to get around to as many schools as I can. Many of those schools in Alice Springs I visit on a regular basis include Braitling, Larapinta, Sadadeen, Centralian Senior College, Centralian Middle School, Gillen Primary School, to name a few, as well as those in my electorate. It is really important that we focus on attendance and getting those kids to school every day.
It is pleasing to see the early figures in 2011 of school attendance, particularly an increase. It is always good to see an increase in attendance. It is up to 79.2% attendance overall, 89% in urban areas, and 84% in remote areas. Within my own electorate of Stuart, there have been some great successes and improved attendance in the first term of 2011. I will mention those schools that have increased their attendance including Kalkaringi School from 51% last year up to 65.9%, nearly 70%, so far this year.
Kalkaringi is a fantastic school. It is renowned for its graduates, particularly the first graduates from Year 12 some time ago. Like many schools, they go through their ups and downs and, sometimes, there is a high turnover of staff. However, the strong basis of that school is the local people. People such as Michael Paddy and Maurie Ryan have been the backbone, the basis, of that school for many years.
Last year at Lajamanu School, their attendance was around 37.5% - which is very bad, what can you say? However, I am very pleased to see, so far this year, that has gone up to 57.2%. There has been a lot of hard work there. Last year, there were a number of large community meetings with the school council and members of the community to deal with some of those issues. That is the way these things are sorted out in the bush: you get under the nearest tree or on the basketball court. You assemble the community and you talk about it and sort it out - whether it be about the school or other issues on that community. Lajamanu has worked really hard in dealing with the school attendance problems. Those problems occur for many reasons. It is really good to see that school attendance has improved there so far this year.
Laramba School is one of the better schools in my electorate of Stuart regarding attendance. Last year, their attendance rate was 68.6%, this year it was 76.7%. It is on the way up. They are building momentum out in the bush. I was there late last year for the school concert at Laramba, and they are very enthusiastic. They have a great principal and teachers who have been there for many years, and that helps in dealing with those issues and getting school attendance up. They are very hard-working in the Secondary Men’s Program. They try a number of initiatives, from music to visits into Alice Springs and Centralian Middle School and Senior College. It is those people on the ground, those principals and teachers, who just grind away and keep going. That attendance at Laramba is very largely due to the long-term teacher and principal they have there.
Nyirripi School is one of the more remote schools in my electorate: 39.5% attendance last year and they are up to 58%, nearly 59% this year. Again, it is a matter of chipping away, trying different things, getting the community involved, sometimes calling a community meeting at the basketball court and talking about it. It is great to see Nyirripi is building momentum in 2012 for a great year.
Willowra School: 35.6% attendance last year, and up to 55.6% - another great school. They have had their fair share of issues over the years, and they are ones you have to keep working at. There are very complex issues when it comes to families and disagreements. These issues on the ground, as the member for Barkly would know, can have a really dramatic impact on school attendance.
They are some of the great schools in my electorate that have had early success this year. The other one I will mention is Yuendumu, a community that has been known for its issues over the last 18 months or so. I have done a lot of work out there, particularly last year, with the principal, in looking at their school attendance plan, linking it into the local implementation plans. The project we are working on is the oval upgrade and linking that to school attendance at Yuendumu. As they reach certain percentages of school attendance, then we look at how we can upgrade their football oval to NTFL standards.
It is those innovative projects where you localise it, talk with local people, work with the school community and the larger community, and you all chip in together. I am not sure what their attendance is so far this year, but I will certainly ask the minister at some point. I am keen to get back to Yuendumu to work with the principal and the school community about making that school attendance plan work, and seeing attendance grow.
The other issue in education is the art of teaching. I know the report focuses on the funding streams, but I believe education is a lifelong experience; it is a lifelong journey. You can start way back to when babies are born in the family environment, parents as teachers, right through their childcare, Transition, primary school, secondary, and even adult education. One thing I pick up in my trips around the electorate is adult education and the importance of getting those older people back into some form of education or training. That is a particular issue I have come up against at Yarralin, again in my electorate. If you have disengaged young adults who are also very young parents, that cycle just goes around like a revolving door. It is really important that we look at education as a lifelong journey. We need to continue seeing how we can engage those young people, those young parents, and even the older people in those communities, into some form of education or training.
In other areas of Central Australia there have been similar great results. At Centralian Middle School, last year they were just under 80% attendance. This year, they are up to 81.3%. Neutral Junction School, in the electorate of my colleague, the member for Barkly, was at just under 55% last year, and is up to 60.4% this year. Papunya School was at 54.4% last year and is up to 62.2% this year. Obviously, much hard work is going on in the bush, member for Barkly. It is teachers working with parents, the school council, and the whole community chipping away at these issues and building the momentum to increase attendance. Tennant Creek Primary School is another great school - 66.8% attendance last year, up to 67.4% this year. There are really good successes there. It is important to celebrate our successes and to learn from them and look at what they are doing to increase that attendance.
In achievements in Central Australia, the outstanding results from our graduating students last year is proof our schools are second to none. I had the privilege late last year of meeting Jarrad Dickson from Our Lady of the Sacred Heart College in Alice Springs who achieved the highest score in Year 12 in the Northern Territory. It is fantastic to have someone from Alice Springs achieve the highest score across the whole of the Northern Territory for Year 12. His achievement follows former Centralian Senior College student, Bevan Botha, who was the equal top student last year. Unfortunately, I did not get to meet Bevan. Prior to that was Edward Tikoft, whom I met, from St Philip’s College, who was a top student in 2008. Jarrad’s Australian tertiary admission rank, or ATER, was 99.95%, almost perfect - 0.5% off. This is an outstanding result ...
Mr Elferink: You know why they do that? They cannot put in 100; it just will not take it.
Mr HAMPTON: True? Well, there you go. It is still fantastic - unbelievable. I wish I had received that when I was at boarding school. It should guarantee him a place at any university in the country. I was talking to Jarrad and his parents and he is aiming very high. He is aiming to study medicine at Charles Darwin University and, after seeing what his father has done with the Royal Flying Doctor Service, is very passionate about becoming a doctor. I said to him: ‘That is great. When you become a qualified doctor come back to Alice Springs or work somewhere in the Territory’ ...
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move that the member be given an extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr HAMPTON: Thank you, colleagues. Madam Speaker, the outstanding results from Jarrad and many other Year 12 Centralian students show if a child goes to school every day in the Territory they get a great education, equal to that of any other jurisdiction. The sky is the limit.
The establishment of Centralian Middle School in Alice Springs has also been very positive in providing better facilities and resources to young Centralians. The establishment of CMS is a key achievement of the Alice Springs Youth Action Plan. It was very good to see CMS playing a strong role in the local community over the Christmas period, where it opened its doors to events and activities for after-school hours during the holiday break. CMS also had a major role in the success of the summer holiday program in Alice Springs, running a variety of activities over the break. I particularly thank Centralian Middle School and the principal for opening the doors.
We also have some innovative programs operating in our Centralian schools encouraging attendance and boosting retention. Listening to the minister, these programs are growing and reaching Territorians in remote regional areas, which is fantastic. We have all heard about the Clontarf program. We heard how it has been such a huge success. I can proudly say I have had three of my sons participate in the Clontarf Academy. I still have one there at the moment, at Centralian Middle School. The success of programs like Clontarf is not the money you put in, but the people behind the scenes. I acknowledge three local men who have been involved with the program for some time, but have been really much part of the success: Ian McAdam, Charlie Maher and Shaun Cusack. All are great local role models, all local Indigenous fellows who have put much time and effort into the Clontarf program in Alice Springs and, as I said, have been very much part of the success.
The same principle operates at the Centralian Girls Academy program at CMS, Centralian Senior College. Over the last couple of years, I have taken the time to go and have breakfast with some of the young ladies at Centralian Middle School to listen to the issues they face - some of the dreams of what jobs they are chasing when they leave school. It was great to be able to take the Chief Minister there last year. It was also really great to be able to attend the graduation ceremony in Alice Springs last year. They are going to be kicking some goals in the years to come. The academy provide great mentorship support for those young girls but, also, for the mothers, the fathers, and families of those young girls.
They are two great programs that government has been able to support, also through philanthropic organisations such as the Smith Family, the Ricky Grace Foundation and, of course, Gerard Neesham and the Clontarf people from Perth. These are also some of the unsung heroes. As the Gonski report said, he investigated philanthropic organisations and where we can get much more support from them. That is two great models where we have been able to achieve that.
Under the Youth Action Plan, we have also put resources into reengaging disadvantaged secondary aged students. The minister touched on the Edmund Rice Education Australia Youth Plus Program where they run an outreach support and bridging program from the Youth Hub. If there are colleagues who have not been there, I encourage them to go to the Youth Hub in Alice Springs and look at exactly what it is doing. This year, Edmund Rice will be a registered school, and will be offering alternative programs to reengage kids with education, and get them back on to the path of learning. Talking to my colleague, it is important we also look at the juvenile facility in Alice Springs, making sure those young people who are in the facility are getting some form of education. When they leave, maybe there is connection with the Youth Club and the Edmund Rice we can provide those young people with.
The Youth Action Plan has also funded wraparound education services in Alice Springs such as successful targeting health improving education partnerships with Congress. The program provides a visiting nurse and a path to medical services if needed, with the aim of improving students’ health and wellbeing which, of course, has a direct impact on the ability to attend school regularly and learn.
I quickly turn to ICT, a very exciting area of education. We have talked about it before. I have talked about the Arnhem Land fibre-optic project and the opportunities that is providing to many of those schools through Arnhem Land. It would be very difficult for these remote communities and distance education users not being able to deploy these facilities and get online services. There is also the satellite to all remote sites programs or networks. STARS Satellite Network and online learning systems have transformed the delivery of remote education, making Alice Springs and Katherine School of the Air world leaders in delivery of remote and distance education services.
With the implementation of the National Broadband Network, the Northern Territory government has a unique opportunity to improve education outcomes across the Territory. Access to approved national digital learning objects that can be used by teachers and all schools across the Northern Territory, and the digital distribution of books and educational videos for on-demand use in the classroom, regardless of where that classroom is, will become possible over the National Broadband Network.
Another issue is the Department of Education and Training has been able to establish a Nightcliff technology precinct - I am sure you are aware of that, Madam Speaker - that provides tools, resources, and people to professionally develop all learners, and to pilot, test, and review emerging technologies and research as part of our support to teachers and schools to enhance ICT capabilities and enrich teaching and learning. They are just a couple of the ICT initiatives.
Turning quickly to sport and recreation - our Sport Policy One very much focuses on Territory 2030 and how we can engage young people. As we know, sport is a very important vehicle to get kids to school, to live a healthy lifestyle. With regard to the school sports program, over the years I have been able to do a couple of trips with staff from School Sport NT. They rely heavily on volunteers. It is a great program giving kids many opportunities and is one I fully endorse.
Parks and Wildlife recently announced Junior Rangers. I believe my colleague, the member for Casuarina, spoke about rangers. I know schools such as Mataranka and some schools through Nhulunbuy are very active in Junior Ranger programs. This is another program to add to the toolbox for education and engaging young kids.
Regarding the minister’s comments, I certainly welcome attendance officers. As I travel, particularly in Alice Springs, I am continually seeing many young people walking the streets and I wonder whether they should be at school. I am sure the engagement of attendance officers in Alice Springs will be able to deal with some of those issues. The No School, No Service program has been very successful. It has had great support from the business community in Alice Springs. I am aware of the highly mobile unit in Alice Springs. They are very busy and they will keep busy, minister, with the number of people who come into Alice Springs for various reasons. I look forward to a briefing on how that is travelling, perhaps during the middle of the year.
The other issue I quickly mention is the Back to School Bonus voucher. This program has been well received by parents, making costs somewhat easier on families, reducing the burden of school uniforms.
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to support the minister in his statement and I believe it is important we continue to talk about education - even if we talked about it last August. With the Gonski report and the importance of education, it is a debate we should continue to have.
Debate adjourned.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received the following letter from the member for Port Darwin:
Madam Speaker
It is signed by the member for Port Darwin.
Is the proposed discussion supported? It is supported.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I thank honourable members for their support, and the government for its indulgence to allow an MPI to be brought on today.
This is a matter of public importance, more than I expected it to be, because I made a determination in my mind’s eye that I would seek leave of my colleagues to introduce an MPI of this nature some time ago and determined to do it this morning, only to discover, as I was driving into work, a media release being fired off by the government in relation to the ships which are coming into town.
I believe the Love Boat - whatever that is called nowadays - as well as the Queen Mary II …
Mr Mills: The Discovery.
Mr ELFERINK: The Discovery - I thank the Leader of the Opposition. These are, obviously, famous and magnificent vessels, particularly the Queen Mary II. One cannot be but impressed by the enormity of this vessel. One could be forgiven for thinking a vessel of that size over the equator would probably cause a wobble in the earth as it rotates. That piece of levity aside, the fact is when these ships tie up, they will then disembark their passengers into our fine city. One of the very first views the passengers of that vessel will get is, essentially, of a vacant lot with some weeds, some mounds of dirt, and the physical appearance of a patch of land which is uninviting.
That is not to say that, prior to the waterfront being developed, the land was particularly inviting at that point. The area of the waterfront development I am referring to has already been built - which I refer to as Stage 1 - and has improved that area remarkably. It certainly does not come close to fulfilling the promises that were made in relation to the Stage 1 development. Nevertheless, most of the public seem fairly happy with the development of Stage 1, and it is certainly not an eyesore by any stretch of imagination.
The unbuilt area, which I refer to as Stage 2 - I know it is Stage 5 in some other people’s minds, but for the ease of conversation, I will refer to it as Stage 2 - remains undeveloped. I believe the land itself is the property of Toga as the developer. The government has an 18% share in all units which are sold as a result of the development of that stage. The billboard at the front advertising this new and exciting development is now sun bleached to the point of bare legibility. The sales office - I presume it is the sales office - is a series of demountables which are looking a bit tired. One could be forgiven for expecting tumbleweeds to roll by as you drive past the front of that development in the Kitchener Drive area.
I understand there are certain commercial realities driving this development and I could well understand that Toga would like to wait until the unit prices in Darwin have improved before they add 1300-odd units into the marketplace, which is how many units as I understand it will, ultimately, be in that whole area going down to the old Iron Ore Wharf which was recently removed.
Whilst I understand that, the problem is the physical appearance of the site is very disappointing indeed. It is not the best foot that Darwin can put forward to the tourists coming off these boats. I listened with interest to the Minister for Tourism today talking about seven boats coming to Darwin in the very near future. All of them will arrive at the terminal there, and the people who get off all of those seven boats will be confronted with the same physical view of that particular part of the waterfront development.
I urge Toga, and government as an interested party in this private development, to be mindful of the impact the area has on the surrounding area. If you go back to the Toga pamphlets that were put out at the time, Toga was very mindful of how they sold Stage 1 - so much so the artist’s impression went to very great care to show grass all over the blocks - which I believe were the property of Fraser Henry – around the back of the Fisherman’s Wharf area. So, Toga wanted to put the best foot forward in the sale of Stage 1, but seem less excited to actually put a real foot forward when it comes to a development of Stage 2. I am not asking for a massive exercise in landscaping, but a lawn would be nice, and some basic levelling just to tidy the place up until Toga determines it is the necessary time to proceed with the development.
Having made that observation, I turn my attention to one component of the proposed development. It has come to my attention, through various means, that the Toga development, like so many developments, requires an element of pre-sales, and the contracts for the development of the Stage 2 area - the stage that is currently unbuilt - were signed with a sunset clause in them, which I believe was 31 December 2013. It is interesting to note the government - certainly not in any of its announcements - has not bound itself to any time frame particularly beyond making a promise that by the year 2020 those units will all be developed. Turning my attention back to the sunset clauses, they clearly do not anticipate the same time line as the 2013 sunset clauses in the pre-sale arrangements.
I would be disappointed if Toga did not endeavour to pursue a date of completion of 2013 to make good on those contracts. I do not know if there are any penalty clauses in those contracts but, if there are not, then Toga - and, by proxy, the Northern Territory government - has bound people to fulfil a contractual commitment to ensure they are able to pay for the units they have pre-sales for and, in the same process, not binding themselves to anything.
It would be extremely disappointing, if the Territory economy grows to the level that government says it will, Toga will then allow those sunset clauses to expire. Whilst that may have the effect of releasing the contracting parties from the contract, it would be disappointing if there was no penalty clause and Toga was simply using the vehicle of the passage of time to enable itself to resell those units at a substantially larger price than at the time of the original signing of contract. If that is occurring, and if that does occur, I would have no choice but to hold the government complicit because it has a direct pecuniary interest in the outcome and sale of those units. That property right the government maintains, the 18%, would make the government a part developer of the project and, as a consequence, stand at loggerheads with itself, because it is also the final approving authority. It would be an interesting circumstance where someone, or an organisation, with a pecuniary interest would also be the approving authority for any development.
I also turn my attention to another component of how the waterfront is being organised. I notice the Chief Minister, as minister responsible for the Darwin waterfront, has introduced a bill into this House which I have not yet read - he introduced it last week - which will enable the ratings arrangements to be ‘clarified’, I understand was the word he used. It raises the other component of what is happening at the waterfront. I am concerned the people who are being asked to pay rates, who suffer all the consequences for failing to pay rates, do not have representation in any form of local government authority.
As I said the last time I raised this in adjournments last week, I am mindful and understand the reasons why local government services were being provided by an organisation other than the Darwin City Council. I do not lay blame for this situation at the government’s feet. It was a refusal by the Darwin City Council at the time to take on the municipal role for that particular area. However, what we have now is a circumstance in which the Darwin City Council has a contracting role to provide services to the Darwin Waterfront Corporation. You have a rather bizarre situation where the council, which has no municipal role whatsoever in the waterfront, nevertheless sends its people down to the waterfront to give out parking tickets and run other municipal services in the waterfront area.
It is astonishing that this situation continues and I ask government, as well as the Darwin City Council, to determine some way through it, to resolve it, for a couple of reasons. The first reason is the principled reason of taxation without representation; namely, the collection of council rates - or should I say, local government rates - without any elected body to aspire to, if you happen to be a ratepayer.
A second component of this is there is a capacity for the Darwin Waterfront Corporation and, as I understand it, they are now levying, a 20% surcharge on the rates. What I have been unable to determine or discover is what that 20% surcharge is actually being charged for. Rubbish is collected, other municipal services are provided, but none of those municipal services seem to exceed or go beyond municipal services which are provided by any council in any other area. So, what is the 20% for? Some people suggest that the mere exclusivity of the area may justify a 20% surcharge. I do not accept that.
The system of rating at the waterfront, I imagine, operates on the same UCV system that would operate in any other environment and, by virtue of the fact that land is worth so much more than it is anywhere else in Darwin, I imagine, the higher rate would be automatically paid anyhow. There is a Darwin Waterfront Corporation surcharge on this rate collection process which does not have any rationale, that I can see, about it. If exclusivity is the rationale for it, then it would already be captured in the UCV component. There are no further services being offered and, so, I would like to know and have a clear indication from the Northern Territory government – ultimately, as the local government authority - as to why this 20% surcharge is being applied, and what services are being offered to people at the waterfront which are otherwise not available to people who live elsewhere within the municipality of Darwin?
Madam Speaker, my concerns, in summary, are effectively that the current undeveloped area covered by the Darwin Waterfront Corporation is, frankly, not a good look at all. In fact, it is very untidy and very disappointing. The second component is that the council arrangements at the waterfront are unsatisfactory. I believe the time has come for the Darwin City Council and the Darwin Waterfront Corporation to resolve whatever differences existed in the past, and endeavour to absorb the waterfront area into the municipality of Darwin for the purposes of normalisation of local government services.
The other component I wanted to touch on is the requirement for a review under the Darwin Waterfront Corporation legislation, the enabling legislation. When the legislation was passed, there were assurances given by the Northern Territory government - in fact, there was an acknowledgement, essentially, by the Northern Territory government at the time - that the circumstances surrounding the effective municipal services were less than perfect and, once people had taken up residence in the area, there was going to be a review of the operation of the area. I note there have been three annual reports. However, the annual reports are required by a different part of the legislation. The legislation - I cannot remember the section number, it could well be 31 off the top of my head - was quite specific that after people started living down there and were paying rates, there would be a review after 12 months.
That review has not been tabled in this parliament, and I have never seen that review. What I seek from government in their response to this matter of public importance is that they are able to: (a) confirm that that review had been conducted in accordance with the law of the Northern Territory; and (b) that review be made public. It is an unsatisfactory situation in which we find ourselves. We have a promise of a review arising out of a poor set of circumstances because of the municipal problems the Darwin City Council had and, now, not to see that review, I consider disappointing. I would hate to see the government place me and other people into a situation where the government would be accused of covering up or hiding the findings of any such review. So, if the review is being done, then I ask the government to take this opportunity here to table the review.
Ultimately, I know the area will be developed. However, this is a matter of public importance because it has much to do with how Darwin, and particularly the waterfront area, presents itself to visitors, as well as to the people who live here. The Territory government has a vested interest in the sale of the waterfront units. I would hate to see a circumstance where the government is aware that these sunset clauses are going to occur, and they are going to let them slide by with the view to extracting even more out of the development process of the 1300 units. If that is what the Toga group is planning to do, then I would be very disappointed. I hope Toga and, by inference, the government, would make every effort to honour the contracts which have been made between Toga and the people who have signed up to these pre-sales.
There was some verbal indication for some people who purchased at the pre-sale point that there was an expectation these units would be developed by, essentially, November 2011. I am fully aware of the operation of the statute of frauds and collateral contracts, and other surrounding comments so the contracts themselves do not actually nominate that date, but there was a certain amount of reliance on contracting parties.
Madam Speaker, I look forward to the government’s response in relation to this. The government does have a duty to be straight up and down with the people who live there, and I await with angst the government’s reply.
Dr BURNS (Education and Training): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is with pleasure that I speak to this matter of public importance and put it in the historical context. The historical context, basically, is the CLP has always hated this waterfront development. In fact, they are on the record that ...
Mr Tollner: You have no idea, you drongo!
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask the member for Fong Lim to withdraw that unparliamentary remark.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I ask you to withdraw, please.
Mr TOLLNER: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, I withdraw and reiterate that the CLP actually came up with the idea of developing the waterfront.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Resume your seat, thank you. I simply asked you to withdraw, not to make a statement.
Mr TOLLNER: I already have withdrawn.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Resume your seat, member for Fong Lim! You do not have the call.
Dr BURNS: I will come to that, member for Fong Lim; I will deal with that. Here we have: 3 December 2004, ‘Scrap waterfront call’. This is in the NT News: ‘CLP leader wants to revert to 1999 model’. In one, we have the DNA of the CLP’s ‘back to the future’ stuff. It is always back to the future, back to where they were, back to their 27 years.
They wanted to revert to their 1999 model when this was being constructed and developed in 2004. It was my pleasure, at that time, as Minister for Lands and Planning and Minister for Construction and Infrastructure, to have responsibility, if you like, for the construction of the Convention Centre and for the changes that occurred in land tenure there, and also to interact with Toga and the merchant bankers in relation to this particular development.
In this article it says:
So well I remember. It was almost like trench warfare here, sittings after sittings, censure after censure, question after question, the CLP continually trying to put roadblocks in the way of this magnificent development that has come to fruition, in stages, and will continue, as the member for Port Darwin said, until the year 2020.
I will come back to - this diagram does not show it very well, but here is the CLP plan. It has this giant flagpole in the middle of what looks like an inflated doughnut, or something like that. That was the centrepiece. It was a spire, a monument, I think they said. Then there was a lot of car parking around it. I am not sure whether the other buildings which surround it was actually the convention centre or residential blocks. I will table this soon.
Interestingly, the Iron Ore Wharf is still there and the conveyor belt. It has been airbrushed a little so it does not look like an iron ore wharf anymore. That was the CLP plan. It is quite bizarre, really. The other thing the Opposition Leader, at that stage - he was Opposition Leader in 2004, we know how that got handed back to Denis Burke prior to the election, but that is another story. I have dealt with that in other debates here. It says here:
Here we have the CLP - the socialist CLP - fighting against private investor involvement in a project. Clare Martin, at that time, found it quite a bizarre position for the Opposition Leader to put forward that, somehow, he would object to a private sector development in this project. Indeed, from memory, it was around $140m of government money that leveraged that $900m investment at the time. I thought it was really the way to go. Paul Tyrrell was front and centre in this whole negotiation. It was a coup for the Northern Territory.
I will turn into the specifics of the member’s MPI in a second, but I can honestly say Territorians and people living in Darwin really value that development there. The CLP objected to the Convention Centre being built there. They wanted it built along The Esplanade, from memory, at one stage. They were not really sure where they were going to build it - maybe next door to this parliament; it was somewhere around there. We know they had a failed go at the Hotel Darwin at one stage; they were looking at that.
This Convention Centre project, which came to fruition, is really appreciated by Darwin people. A whole range of people attend functions there; it attracts conventions from all over Australia. It is a top-class facility. Along with that, as the member for Port Darwin is alluding to, we have residential development and some commercial development. It was quite a complex undertaking. I remember, as Minister for Lands and Planning at the time, actually working through those issues and regularly inspecting the project which, incidentally, was built by local contractors, Macmahon. They did a great job building that Convention Centre, which I believe is a jewel for Darwin.
We have had the CLP alternatives. That industrial land this development is occurring on until 2020, was really vacant industrial land. I also remember, as I am recollecting now, the trenchant, strident opposition from the then Lord Mayor of Darwin, Peter Adamson, who absolutely opposed this thing at every turn and was quite dishonest in the way he did it.
I remember one time he alleged that contaminated soil had been taken from the waterfront to the Darwin City Council dump, and accused us of not having the right environmental safeguards. I clearly remember inviting other aldermen down there where they were briefed on the processes around remediating and disposing of that soil. Very little was disposed of. The truckload he talked about did not come from the waterfront at all; it came from somewhere else; another development in Darwin. He was quite dishonest. As the member for Port Darwin alluded to, it was probably him, front and centre, who really propelled the waterfront into the arrangement it is in now because he refused to take it on as a local government responsibility. I say shame on him! That is an important issue.
In relation to the four matters the member for Port Darwin raised, he talked about the amenity first, and I will deal with that. He then talked about the time line for development of the current stage, in total, until 2020, and he asked some questions about that. He then raised issues in relation to the amendments to the Darwin Waterfront Corporation Act that had been moved in this parliament by the Chief Minister. Last, he talked about the requirements for review. I will specifically try to deal with all the issues you have raised ...
Mr Elferink: And the 20% levy.
Dr BURNS: I have the 20% levy underneath the amendment to the Darwin Waterfront Corporation Act - you raised that issue underneath that. I could call that 3(a) and 3(b) if you like, but I will come to that.
In regard to the amenity, as I said before, that land was vacant industrial land. In fact, my memory tells me, prior to this government coming to power, the facility for the cruise ships existed on the other wharf - on Stokes Hill Wharf not Fort Hill Wharf. We constructed a facility there for cruise ships. I forget the exact figure now - it is probably a few years ago ...
Mr Elferink: It was $4.5m.
Dr BURNS: Thank you, member for Port Darwin. It was constructed at a cost to the taxpayer, but an investment. I really commend the Minister for Tourism because we are attracting more cruise ships. Global uncertainty in other areas makes cruise ships visits problematic in some ports. They are very pleased to visit Darwin, and some quite large ships visit. We have the Queen Mary II coming and that is a big filler for the Darwin economy.
Yes, they will come here. They will see some vacant land there, but this is a long-term project until 2020. That was always the plan for this particular project. However, they will not see the iron ore wharf. They would have seen it in your sketch. It was still there in what ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I appreciate the need for the minister to play politics, but he does not have to yell. I am not accusing the government of anything other than calling on the government to attend to a few things.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is your point of order, member for Port Darwin?
Mr ELFERINK: I am saying he does not have to yell and scream as he is at the moment. He can take a pill, slow down, and answer the question, and we would be well obliged.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Can you resume your seat. There are some members on this side of the House who also have very loud voices when they are talking. There is no point of order.
Dr BURNS: Madam Deputy Speaker, I was diverted. What probably upset the member for Port Darwin is I was trying to address his concerns in the order he raised them. He talked about a faded billboard, and the sales office. I am advised that Toga does have an office. They have had a large, modern glass-fronted sales office fronting the palm grove in Kitchener Drive for over two years. The office is extremely large, well-presented and offers intending purchasers of Stage 2 an excellent overview of the vision for the precinct, including the scale model …
Mr Elferink: But a demountable.
Dr BURNS: It is not a demountable as stated by you. That is the first thing. I have tried to address that issue.
In relation to the dealings by Toga, they have contracts with people I understand are supposed to come to fruition in 2013. Toga is a company with large developments all around Australia; this is one of them. I understand they have $800m worth of developments in Sydney. I do not know whether the member for Port Darwin has visited Toga in Sydney, or whether he has had many discussions with the principals of Toga. These are very experienced developers, and I have every confidence they will meet their time lines. They are in on the ground floor in this, and they are proceeding, and continue to sell. Basically, the member for Port Darwin is alleging some sort of conspiracy on the port …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am not alleging a conspiracy, I am flagging a concern. I just want the minister to become less shrill and simply address the issue.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is the point of order? There is no point of order, member for Port Darwin.
Mr Elferink: I recommend Valium for the minister because clearly his frothing is just ridiculous.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Resume your seat, member for Port Darwin. Resume your seat, thank you. There is no point of order. You have had your contribution in this debate. Leader of Government Business, you have the call.
Dr BURNS: Thanks, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have every confidence in Toga and their ability to deliver. They are certainly very experienced people in developments. They have large backing, not only here but all around Australia. Basically, this is a longer-term project; we have always known that. Government has said that.
What I was asserting before was the member for Port Darwin seemed to be saying that Toga was sitting on their units for a time so they could reap more money which is a conspiracy, a strategy - whatever you want to call it. I am saying I do not believe that is so. I believe Toga is an ethical company and they have vast experience in developments all around Australia - I think in every jurisdiction in Australia. They have a very good name throughout Australia, and I do not think they would really be appreciating some of the assertions being made by the member for Port Darwin.
He then alluded to current amendments to the Darwin Waterfront Corporations Act. It is my information - and I do not want to preempt or anticipate debate - the amendments are all about correcting a technical issue between this act and the Unit Title Schemes Act based on the current wording of section 15(7). It is not sufficiently clear that the corporation can levy rates directly on the owner of the unit and, at the same time, levy rates on the common property at the highest level of the scheme. If not corrected, this could have a considerable administrative and financial impact on the corporation, as well as the body corporate managers or administrators. That is the rationale for the amendments to the act.
He mentioned the capacity to elect their local representatives. Of course, this is something, as I have said, that was forced on government by the intransigent attitude of the then Lord Mayor. It is something that, with time, will change. However, the current challenge is to make this whole thing workable.
Regarding the extra services, it is my advice the principle, first, is maintained to an exceptionally high level. Intending purchasers were advised in the information memorandum attached to their sales contracts that a common area rate of up to 20% of the aggregate of the individual rates was likely to apply. Basically, I am advised people were told about this before they purchased; that there would be this 20%. In the extras that are being delivered there: the maintenance of the recreation lagoon; maintenance of boardwalks; active security and CCTV camera maintenance; the patrolled beach; maintenance of high-standard public domain lighting including pole lights, wall lights, bollard lights, wall lights and uplights; high level of landscaping – and this is very significant, member for Port Darwin; irrigation system maintenance as there are about 750 trees and 29 000 shrubs throughout the public areas of the precinct; cleaning and sealing of the pathways; maintenance and cleaning of the public elements; and high frequency lawn mowing and maintenance to a high standard of presentation.
I acknowledge all of the facilities there can be used by the public, which has access to them. However, I strongly argue, member for Port Darwin, that the amenity of the area and some of the elements I have mentioned actually add value to the property of those people who live there, and make them proud to be able to live there.
I am further advised, member for Port Darwin, the total of the levy across the whole development is $33 000, across all people in residence there, which I am advised number 125 people. That works out to about $200 per owner per year. So, people are being levied that extra amount for that amenity, and I believe that amenity adds to the value of the properties.
You, importantly, mentioned the review - and you are entirely right. The review was required under section 37 of the act and, you are also correct in that the review was not completed within 12 months of the occupancy permit being issued. That is quite true but, in conversation with people in the corporation, they advised the by-laws were not enacted by the 12 months and the rates were not levied until after the 12 months. I have asked the direct question of the corporation: when will the review be available for the public? I am told it will be within six to eight weeks, member for Port Darwin. So, you are right, and it is a good point about the review being required under the act and the review was not done after 12 months. It is being completed, and I have been advised by the corporation that it will be made public, with a caveat, excluding those areas that might be commercial-in-confidence, but all other suitable material will be released in a public manner.
In summary, the CLP have opposed and put obstacles in this whole development down there. It must pain them when they go to functions. I have seen the look. I have sat across the table from the member for Port Darwin when people from interstate and others enthused about this wonderful Convention Centre. You would think that, instead of having a lovely meal on his plate, it is a whole plate full of salty plums that he has had to chew on, or a great big slice of lemon. He does not look happy when people talk about it, and he feels very uncomfortable about it. I have glanced across at the Leader of the Opposition. He shifts on his chair a little when the praise comes through for this wonderful Convention Centre.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe it a wonderful achievement by this government. We have a long-term vision, a long-term plan for that area. Certainly, you can look at vacant land and grass etcetera. It has been attended to, but we are looking to the future. We are looking to 2020 for the completion of this project.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, the warrior comes out, firing the same old shots.
I commend the member for Port Darwin, an outstanding local member, who provided very accurate and insightful coverage of issues which are of concern to his constituents and are of importance to development in our capital city. There was some adequacy in parts of the response. Other aspects of it were not covered, and I will leave that for the member for Port Darwin to pursue. The matters raised by the member for Port Darwin were raised on behalf of people who have concerns. They have questions that need to be answered and they need clarification.
The crusty old warrior on the other side is keen to take an unhealthy delight in his role. It makes me a little uncomfortable to see how much the honourable member enjoys that part of his role that he has assumed with such gladness. He seems to, obviously, push others aside who want to sit in the Chamber here and have a shot. ‘No, let me do it’, he says, and the others gladly step aside because, for some strange reason, this man enjoys that level of engagement. So, he is here night after night after night, getting strange delight from these odd, and a little disturbing, nasty attacks.
The member for Port Darwin was raising matters that were of concern to people in his electorate, who would have been looking forward to their concerns being raised. They would have been listening to, and they will read that, and they will also read the member for Johnston’s reply. There will be elements of that which will leave them uncomfortable, perhaps disturbed. If we follow the happy logic of the member for Johnston that, at the time the opposition and the Opposition Leader were raising concerns, they were not concerns; they were just plucked out of the air. They were concerns that were expressed by members of the community. We played our part, ran those arguments, put them, and held the government to account, as is our responsibility. I have to tell you, that has passed, we did our job at the time.
I know what Labor is thinking what we are meant to be doing is singing along and cheering and saying, ‘Oh, you blokes are doing a fantastic job’; and we just sit down and smile and give you three cheers every time you make a decision or announcement, or put out a glossy brochure - we put out one too, endorsing the glossy brochure and saying how great it is.
However, we had a job to do. I know you probably think this is a hard thing to do, but we have been through that, we did our job at that time. I have to tell you, the fact is, I quite like the waterfront. In fact, I take my family there when they are in town, and they are impressed. I like it too.
However, matters that were raised by the member for Port Darwin are legitimate. I do not think you spend enough time or energy, sadly, on addressing those concerns.
Going back to the odd and quite disturbing approach the member opposite takes to matters of public importance, I was thinking, we actually hate the waterfront. I remember the former member for Nhulunbuy used to tell us we hate the waterfront because we dared asked questions about it. Perhaps it is a debating tactic.
If we follow that same logic, the fact is that this Labor Party opposed the railway. We would not have a railway if the Labor Party had been in government because they opposed the railway - they never wanted the railway. They also opposed the Duck Pond down there which the commercial fishing industry makes great use of, and is important to their industry. They opposed the university. If they had been in the government, we would not have a university. That is right, dig back. They opposed Cullen Bay. If they had been in government, we would not have a Cullen Bay. In opposition, they opposed uranium mining; we would not have a uranium mining industry.
I remember, too, being in this Chamber, sitting over there, and the opposition to mandatory sentencing, which they mounted in opposition, now in government, quickly dismantled it. We see some evidence of the results of dismantling. There are plenty of mandatory sentencing regimes that are in place in fact, but the soft approach to sentencing and to law and order has sent a message that has resulted in a real problem, which leads me then to this matter of public importance.
The first point the member for Port Darwin raised is a very important one. We have two vessels containing tourists who are coming to Darwin with some anticipation, and first impressions are only able to be established on that first occasion, and they are the most important ones. So, as the member for Port Darwin described that first encounter - seeing aspects of our waterfront, some of it attractive and some far from being attractive - leads me to explore that notion. The Minister for Tourism then advised, as the member for Port Darwin described, of a further seven vessels arriving, all of them containing tourists. All of those tourists will come and they will gain an impression. The first impression, many times, will be their strongest impression. What they see, as correctly described by the member for Port Darwin, is something of an eyesore. There was an expectation there would be an improvement to what they see at that first landing. That is an important matter the member for Port Darwin raised.
I would like to extend that a little further. This is something the Territory government is directly responsible for. These visitors gain an impression of a community by those first encounters. The vessel berths, the passengers disembark and move up into the CBD. Sometimes what they see in the CBD is going to leave them with a very strong impression and, one, sadly, in many cases would be a negative one.
Before going further with that I will go to Townsville and Cairns. There were two major developments - those two communities compete with each other in many respects and they developed their waterfronts and changed the way the centre of their CBD, their city, looked. They were extremely attractive and had people visiting. I remember my first impressions of Townsville when they developed The Strand, and the water features in the middle of Cairns, were very strong and positive first impressions.
The issues around that was I noticed a vigilance against any antisocial behaviour by those who were protecting what is most valuable in a community - that first impression. There was a vigilant and very swift response to any antisocial behaviour - required to move on, move out of that place. You then have a strong impression established and it is secure and traders are confident to operate in that space and feel backed up.
We do not have the same level of vigilance here with this Labor administration which has not taken the necessary resolve to deal with antisocial behaviour which occupies our showcase places. Yes, the waterfront does look fine but there has always been that issue of connectivity; they will come here then they will go into the mall. There is not adequate control over our public space and what it looks like.
To illustrate the impression, the powerful effect of what may be encountered in our CBD has on someone’s first time in a place like this, I talk to those who gained their first impression of Alice Springs whilst driving coaches. I ask them to recount to me the conversations they overheard after they had their first visit. They cite antisocial behaviour; it is troubling for those who are unfamiliar with it. We seem to accommodate it, but going to another place where things are different and seeing things that you are not accustomed to does have a powerful effect. That is why Cairns and Townsville have gained a strong position, recognising they need to protect those store holders so they have the confidence to know that law and order issues which erode the tone of a community, particularly around the CBD, are under control and they are able to operate in that space.
Going back to Darwin I saw, whilst talking to a very influential visitor from Indonesia - sitting with him at the nice coffee shop in the Paspaley building; that new coffee shop on the corner of the mall. The Raintree Park area had just been – no, it was just before it had improved - it had not been completed and a gentleman behind the fellow I was talking to stood up and - excuse the language - shat in the mall in the middle of the day where people were walking around ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, I ask you to withdraw that, please.
Mr MILLS: I withdraw that and replace it with defecated in public in full view. For those who would think I might be drawing in other connotations, he was a hobo; a bloke who was occupying that space who seemed to spend his day there and who did not want to walk too far. There were many people around. There would have been people who saw that. I did not know what to do. I did not want to turn and draw attention to that because I was talking to someone who was facing me. I saw that in the mall.
Other people see other things in the mall. I am not in the mall all the time. Some people may feel it does not particularly matter to them because there is absolutely no consequence. In my first encounter in Townsville and Cairns, I spoke to all the people who had been to the new development and, if any visitor had seen something like that, it would have been a shocking and negative impression.
That is why the law and order issues and the presentation we have of our CBDs and our main living spaces in Alice Springs and in Darwin are absolutely critical. Particularly when the dollar is so high and tourists are making a very deliberate decision to come to our place and gain an impression, we have to ensure we get on top of law and order. This is a matter of public importance, taking up the first point of the member for Port Darwin: that first impression being what they see when they come close to the port. I am taking it that next step and saying this Labor government has failed miserably in its control of our public spaces, particularly those in our CBD, making sure that connectivity between the waterfront and the CBD is strong. It is clear you may have good buildings there, but you have not been able to control the public space and we, consequently, have some frightful images that leave a disturbing and powerful negative effect on people who have come here, and it needs to be improved.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I acknowledge this is a matter of public importance. I am concerned the member for Johnston has dealt with part of it, and there are other matters that have not been adequately addressed. I am sure they could be pursued at a later stage. I support the matter of public importance.
Discussion concluded.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight, I have words of welcome. I welcome, on behalf of the Katherine community, the new 2012 arrivals at the RAAF Base at Tindal. It is especially nice to be able to welcome tonight some personnel and families for their second posting. We must have done something right for them to want to return. I am not surprised they have come back. It was a pleasure, just a couple of weeks ago, to speak to a lady who had returned to Tindal for her second posting, together with her husband.
The Tindal Air Base was built in the 1980s as a part of the federal government’s push to bring our defences and our Defence Forces closer to the north. The Northern Territory saw the rise of Tindal during those days. I remember those days quite well because I was posted at the police station at Maranboy in those early years, and had friends who were living and working at the Tindal Base in those fledgling years of our RAAF presence in Katherine. The base has, since that time, steadily grown. It is pleasing to see, not only the growth of personnel numbers, but also the growth of the infrastructure to support our Defence presence in the north.
The Defence members based at Tindal, and their families, numbering around 2000, really do contribute to the social fabric of our town. How could they not? If one were to look at the statistical figures, Tindal personnel and their families make up around 20% of the total population of Katherine. Their input helps to bring prosperity to Katherine, and their presence adds to the richness of our culture and the diversity of our society.
Apart from the valued work of our pilots, ground and support staff at Tindal, there are many partners, wives and husbands who take up employment in the town and bring with them a wealth of knowledge and experience and contribute significantly to our skills base. Our RAAF friends send their children to our schools with most favouring the Casuarina Street Primary School, which is an excellent school in Katherine and one I regularly visit.
I regularly speak to the senior Australian Defence Force officer at Tindal and we both agree on a desire for RAAF personnel and their families to become part of the Katherine community. This will enable them to integrate, to take part in the myriad of sporting activities on offer in Katherine, to make friends, to find their fit in the social fabric not to mention to visit the beautiful natural wonders of the Katherine region.
To our new arrivals at Tindal, which number a few hundred I say welcome, and in considering how you might become involved in our community, I implore you all, all the new people who come to Tindal, to leap in and enjoy the great things Katherine has to offer.
It has not been much of a Wet Season. We have had far less rain this year and perhaps it has been somewhat warmer than most Wets although these conditions are not unprecedented. Regardless of the quality of the Wet Season, life goes on and so does work. Regardless of the severity of the Wet Season, there will always be plenty to do for the hard-working linesmen and other frontline staff of the Power and Water Corporation.
Can you imagine, Madam Deputy Speaker, the phone rings at 7 pm just as you are sitting down to dinner? You are not called into the office; you are called out into a cracking thunderstorm, bucketing down with rain, lightning striking around you and having to contend with power lines carrying 22 000 volts. A couple of hours later you arrive home, have your dinner - or have the dinner that you could not have at seven o'clock - and you go to bed. The phone rings again at 1 am. Once again you get called out in the same conditions but you might have to drive from Katherine to Pine Creek, or to Larrimah, or further, to repair another line taken out by a lightning strike. You arrive home at 5 am to go to bed only to have to turn up for your rostered shift a few hours later. That is often the life of many of our frontline Power and Water staff. Then, sadly, the public are onto you because they lost power for a couple of hours and, apparently, it is all the fault of the frontline Power and Water staff.
I do not subscribe to that view. I have a very good understanding of how our power system works and the difficulties, the technical nuances of, for example, bringing the Katherine Power Station online. I know it is not as simple as flicking a switch but many Northern Territory power consumers do not understand the processes. Their criticism of our Power and Water staff is borne from a lack of understanding. I am happy to refute such criticism on behalf of those Power and Water frontline staff and I do so regularly.
I take this opportunity to recognise the hard and often dangerous work, and the barbs that are so often without justification thrown at Power and Water workers who are effectively putting their lives on the line every time they get into the basket of a cherry picker. I send my regards particularly to those staff who work in Katherine and I recognise the hard work they do. Not that they face any less danger than any other of the Power and Water staff who have this role, but they do it over vast tracts of the Territory. They have to travel as far north as Emerald Springs, south to Larrimah including Jilkminggan, Barunga, and Beswick to the east following the extent of transmission lines, and then into the desert country in the west, working in remote communities.
I hope the remainder of the Wet Season does not bring too much work with it for our Power and Water staff. I hope that the Wet Season does not herald conditions that would cause any of our Power and Water staff to come to any harm. I wish them a safe working environment, as safe as it can be under some of the conditions they have to contend with. In the meantime, I say to the Power and Water staff, particularly those in Katherine: ‘Keep up the good work; your work does not go unnoticed and is very much appreciated by those who understand the difficult environment in which you have to work and some of the issues around maintaining a robust power supply’.
However, the criticism you do hear from time to time that is justified is around the strategic maintenance of our Power and Water infrastructure. I know the Power and Water Corporation is in a great deal of debt. They have allocated priorities to parts of the Power and Water infrastructure that we do not often see, and still we are finding failing across the Territory. We must recognise that there is a strong need to have a robust program of strategic maintenance across our Power and Water infrastructure in the Northern Territory. That does not mean just responding to a downed power line, or a blown up insulator, or something like that. We know Power and Water staff get out and do that stuff, and there is never any question about replacing some of those items that get damaged during storms and other incidents that cause problems with our power supply.
I am talking about strategic maintenance, about having a program of replacing things that we know are getting old, that we know through experience and the technical information we are able to get, are going to fail. I see it. For example, I know the insulators on some of our lines get old with age and the weather, and the stresses they are under. I know they develop microcracks, just as one example. Those insulators with microcracks are more inclined to fail, so there must be some way of working around that with a strategic program to get those things replaced before they blow up or are destroyed by some weather event or something else.
I urge the minister in charge of the Power and Water Corporation to look behind the immediate maintenance issues we know our Power and Water workers do so well. We need to look for a more strategic approach to maintaining the infrastructure of Power and Water in the Northern Territory so that we can maintain a continuous and robust supply of electricity to our power and water consumers.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Deputy Speaker, I take this opportunity to thank John Strehlow. On Sunday 12 February, I had the honour, privilege and opportunity to launch his book in Adelaide at the Australian Lutheran College.
I put on record the speech and thank all those many people who attended. There were over 200 people. I take this opportunity to thank, Rev Dr Mike Semmler; President, Lutheran Church of Australia; Rev John Henderson; Principal; Australian Lutheran College; Pastor Paul Albrecht; Pastor Max Stollznow; Mr Moss Keller; Pastor James Winderlich; Mr Bob Ahrens; Dr Dean Zweck; Dr Jeff Silcock; Rev Robert Kempe; Dr Rolph Mayer; Dr Erich Renner; Dr Malcolm Bartsch; Dr Michael Hassold; Dr John Koch; Dr Maurice Schild; and Rev Noel Weiss. The member for Sanderson’s aunt and uncle were also there. I thank Ivan Christian, Colin Jericho, Val Petering and the President of Finke River Mission Board, Tim Stollznow.
It was a great event and I would love to say thank you again to John Strehlow. I will put on record the speech I made in Adelaide:
As I said, I was really happy to see Pastor Paul Albrecht and Ivan Christian, Colin Jericho, Pastor Stollznow and Val Petering. Val’s father, Pastor Petering was the pastor at Papunya and, of course, Pastor Kalleskeat Areyonga.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Deputy Speaker, I congratulate the member for Macdonnell on what was a very moving speech - well done. She is a great ambassador for Central Australia, a true Indigenous representative.
Tonight, I talk about crime in Gillen again. Last week in parliament, I talked about the very high incidence of crime in Gillen, which is a part of the Araluen electorate. I want to share a story of what happened to me on Friday when I returned to Alice Springs. I got off the plane at about 9.30 am, rang my electorate officer, Carly, who informed me she had received several very distressing telephone calls from a couple who reside in a street in Gillen. They had been broken into the day before, which was on the Thursday. I dropped off my gear and quickly made my way to their home.
What I found was two middle aged people - a man and a woman - who have lived in their home in Gillen for 28 years. They are a very well-known couple in Alice Springs, and they have lived their entire married life in this home - a real home, not just a house but where they raised their family. They had renovated it, cared for it, and it is, indeed, a beautiful home. They were very distressed - the woman holding back the tears, the man being quite courageous. They told me this was the third time they had been broken into in the last 15 months.
They showed me around their home. I said to them: ‘I have not come to inspect the damage. I have not come to see anything. I have really just come to find out if you are okay’. They insisted on showing me around their home. In every room in their home, they had their belongings strewn around the place. Their lifelong possessions were everywhere. The people who had broken in had come through a side window. These people had Crimsafe and security screens. They had taken all the advice available on crime prevention through design. They had the right fence; they regularly came home during the day to check on their premises; they had ticked all the boxes in terms of security.
However, unlike any other day, they had not gone home during the day. They returned home at 5 pm or thereabouts after they had finished work and yes, they had been broken into. It was a very distressing scene to see this couple walking around their home, which had been tainted. A few things had been stolen, not much had been broken, but they had been invaded.
I raise this tonight because it is a sign that crime is continuing in Alice Springs. I heard, anecdotally, that this particular incident was one of about four that had happened that day in Gillen. Ironically, two or three weeks before, I had doorknocked that street and an adjacent street which had had several break-ins on that same day and those residents told me that things had been pretty good of late.
I want to let the government of the Northern Territory know that things in Gillen are still the same. People are still being broken into, and primarily alcohol is being stolen. That, I can only conclude, is partly, if not completely, due to the alcohol restrictions imposed on all residents of the Northern Territory but particularly Alice Springs, which has been targeted by this government.
Second, I would like to talk very briefly on the cost of living and lifestyle in Alice Springs. When you talk about lifestyle and the cost of living in Alice Springs, you can narrow this whole issue down to several main factors. One of them is transport. One of the things that affects our lives in Alice Springs is that we only have one passenger airline servicing our town. Our lives are completely affected by how this airline, Qantas - and I thank God that we have Qantas - schedule planes coming in and out of Alice Springs.
As a member of parliament, my life is truly shaped, as are the lives of the other members of parliament, the members for Greatorex, Braitling, and Macdonnell, around the Qantas timetable. More importantly, people in Alice Springs are exceedingly reliant on one airline to take us to cities and towns around Australia and indeed, around the world, and it comes at quite an expense. If you want to travel for example, as a family of four to Brisbane, Melbourne or Adelaide you are looking at a minimum of around $600 for a return ticket. That takes the travel component immediately up to around $2500 just to get from Alice Springs to the city of your choice.
The cost of living in Alice Springs is determined by the fact that we are so reliant on a very expensive airline. Indeed, when things go wrong in our lives, for example, when our elderly parents become ill, or when people pass away, we are at the mercy of this airline and we have to pay top dollar. There is no choice in Alice Springs when it comes to how we get from Alice Springs to Perth if there is a family emergency.
I raise this tonight because the cost of living in the Northern Territory is high, and in Alice Springs, it is even higher perhaps than in Darwin because we have no choice when it comes to passenger airlines. It is important for the Northern Territory government continue to work hard to get another airline into Alice Springs so the cost of living for people in Alice Springs and Central Australia can be reduced.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will touch on a few things. First, I will start with crime. It was good to hear the member for Araluen raise the terrible incident at Gillen in her electorate of Araluen. It is interesting, coming here after the crime spree that Labor said never was, the cracks that it papered over at Christmas time in Alice Springs. When they closed down the media unit of police in Alice Springs to put it in Darwin, they did not issue a media release or tell people what was really going on. We heard of a terrible break and enter, and that is on top of all the other crime that is happening now. There were vehicles targeted in Ochre Court; Woods Terrace - illegally entered; Cromwell Drive - broken into with intruders in the house; and a man arrested for kicking a woman and hitting her with a tyre lever in Alice Springs. Just today, we see an ambulance officer assaulted in Elliott Street; I am sure the minister for Housing would know Elliott Street,
I have written to the minister on many occasions about this and I have spoken about it in parliament ad nauseam. I have asked the minister for Housing to pay attention to Elliott Street and put in place some principles to remove the density of public housing in that street. The three complexes of public housing in Elliott Street, together with every other house just about being public housing, is creating significant problems in the whole area in Northside. The Centre Bush Bus drops people off from out of town at the Elliott Street units on a regular basis, just dumps people out, causing more overcrowding and more urban drift. It is a recipe for disaster. I know the government – well, I know the minister for Housing used to be interested, but on his retirement bed I do not think he seems to care anymore. This is a significant problem and no action has been taken. I have called for a task force to be implemented; a task force of police, public housing, council, Centrelink, Centre Bush Bus - get out there and start solving the problems. You have not responded yet, and I do not expect you will.
This terrible assault on a public officer, that being an ambulance officer, a 40-year-old St John Ambulance Paramedic today is appalling, and the full force of the law should come down on those criminals who attacked the ambulance officer.
It is bad enough that kids are running around the street all hours of the night, that women are being beaten, that there is loud music and antisocial behaviour, people stealing cars, graffiti, burn-outs, and all the stuff that goes on every night in Elliott Street. It is bad enough that it continues, but then we have ambulance officers being assaulted whilst responding to injured people. It is an absolute disgrace. These things will continue to happen. I know that many of the staff in parliament and the members of government must get sick of the Alice Springs members banging on about law and order.
It is shame that the members of parliament from other areas of the Territory who have the same problems do not get up and talk about them. The government members, the member for Barkly, who has the same crime problems in Tennant Creek, will not talk about it, or about problems in Borroloola, Ali Curung, Elliott and Alpurrurulam. He will not talk about those from a Barkly perspective. I can tell you that the people in his electorate are unhappy. And you will find that all the urban centres, or the regional centres of an urban nature in the Northern Territory, are coming under the same pressure.
Palmerston, Darwin and the northern suburbs, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs are all the same. They are suffering the influx of urban drift - people coming from the bush into town. Those people are free to come and go as they please, but they are coming in for a number of reasons. They are coming in because of a lack of development, particularly a lack of support for people who want to live on their community, develop their communities, and develop the regions so there are jobs so people can live there.
No, the federal Labor government and the Territory Labor government are not supporting economic development. They do not have a policy for homelands. They have run this shire implementation model, which is seen as toxic by many people across the Territory. People are being forced off their country and into regional centres, including Darwin and the northern suburbs. Overcrowding and homelessness, which leads to antisocial behaviour, and alcohol consumption and criminal activity is what is driving the law and order problems.
This is assimilation by stealth by Labor, Territory and federal, through lack of investment and economic development in the regions - inertia and driving urban drift into our centres. When you walk the streets of Parap, when you are in Johnston, when you are in Karama, Alice Springs, Katherine and Tennant Creek, they are full to capacity. There are not enough houses for people to live in and that is driving antisocial behaviour and lawlessness.
That is why the Country Liberals support regional development and removing this policy of shires and the negative effects of shires - an underfunded local government model. That is why we support homelands and outstations. That is why we support economic development. That is why our criticism of the federal Labor government from the intervention has been about its lack of progress on developing business and developing jobs and getting people off welfare. That is why we criticise the Territory Labor government for not supporting development in these regions and real reforms. That is how you have change.
No, Labor, at the Territory and federal level, continue this assimilation model of moving people off their country and into our towns of the Northern Territory - towns which cannot cope through capacity restraints of housing and social housing and we see homelessness, overcrowding, antisocial behaviour, drunkenness and crime that every mum and dad in the Northern Territory is sick of. You have it wrong on both fronts. That is why your law and order is failing, and that is why people are sick of having to move off their own country.
I also raise the issue of container deposit legislation. I promised a lady at the markets on Sunday I would. We all support container deposit legislation. Despite what the minister for Natural Resources says, the Country Liberals will not be revoking the CDL but will be looking for more appropriate models to ensure consumers are not hit with inflationary pressures through the cost of cans.
I still have not had the question answered of why a carton of beer goes up by more than $10 when you only get $2.40 back. That is $7.60 per carton inflationary pressure. There are plenty of families across the Territory who cannot afford that - why it costs $57.99 for a 30 block of VB at the Northside shops. It is just not right.
Our Independent member, our Rob Oakeshott of the Northern Territory, likes to roll his eyes and think this is pedantic stuff. It is not! These are inflationary pressures. This is a bad model you were involved in and put in place. The fact that you cannot take a can purchased on 2 January 2012 - why can you not return a can bought on 2 January 2012 ...
Mr Wood interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr GILES: ... that is absolutely disgraceful! You want to clean up the Territory - there are cans bought on 2 January but: ‘Oh, no, you cannot bring those here’. That is despite the allegation that the government instructed retailers to put their prices up before so people in the Territory would not feel the pinch at the introduction of this on 3 January.
Well, people are feeling the pinch. You cannot clean up all those empty cans but you have all these inflationary pressures that impact on the cost of living. This goes on top of the cost of grocery prices, which are now at a heightened level because of the failures of the government to put in flood mitigation regulation approaches for the rail. Now we are seeing a 30% increase in many groceries in the Northern Territory. We are seeing the cost of housing and land go through the roof. Now, we see the CDL stuff on top of that. We have the carbon tax coming in, and the mining resources rent tax coming in. All these taxes are all inflationary.
Labor just washes over them as if it does not mean anything to anyone. However, when you put the CDL on top of it, which is more than the carbon tax - the CDL is more than the carbon tax - substantially more - but no one seems to care. For the mums and dads of the Northern Territory who are now having to pay an extra $10 a carton to get $2.40 back for their recycling is not fair, and is not on. You are not going to clean up the Territory of all its cans and rubbish if you cannot take anything in that was bought on 2 January, because the rules say 3 January. I challenge the minister for Natural Resources and the Environment: why is it that a carton of beer goes up by $10, but you only get back $2.40 under the CDL legislation?
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, the member for Braitling should ask the retailer – it is as simple as that - instead of making it up as he goes along.
Be that as it may, I thought I would talk about the agreement that has been raised today. I will go through the agreement - part of it - because there are quite a number of items in the agreement. The agreement has around 43 different items. Of those 43 items, 23 have been completed, 14 are still active, and six are ongoing. I thought I would go through, as written in the original agreement, and work my way through some of the matters that were raised in the agreement.
The first one was to enact legislation to establish a Council of Territory Cooperation. In October 2009, the Council of Territory Cooperation, called the CTC, was established to examine government decision-making in consultation with opposition and other members of the Legislative Assembly. The CTC is comprised of up to six members, including two government members, two opposition members and, at least one Independent member, with the Independent member for Nelson - that is me - appointed as chair.
The CTC’s purpose is:
to facilitate greater levels of collaboration in the governance of the Northern Territory;
The committee has been investigating SIHIP, local government reform, homelands, outstation policy and growth towns. The committee has also inquired into and reported on issues that are important to the public. The committee also has self-referencing powers, which means it can examine any issues facing the Territory without direction from the parliament. So far, it has used the self-referencing powers to inquire into the 2009 power shortages in the NT - that is the Weddell Power Station specifically - crime reporting statistics - or domestic violence more specifically - and child protection reforms and the public guardian.
It should be noted that the CLP did leave the CTC, but came back in relation to the issue of the power shortages and the crime reporting statistics, and also for the animal welfare governance subcommittee. The animal welfare governance subcommittee inquired into animal welfare governance during 2011, with some emphasis on the Mataranka cattle incident. I should say this also broke new ground, with the Minister for Local Government being allowed to be questioned. That was after the Chief Minister allowed ministers to be questioned by the CTC.
There was the reform of Question Time, something that was well and truly needed, and which has come out of the agreement. Questions now shall be succinct, concise, and direct, and shall not exceed one minute. I am not sure they were always succinct, concise, and direct, but at least they go to one minute. The answer of each question shall not exceed three minutes. The Leader of the Opposition may ask one supplementary question in each Question Time, which shall not exceed 30 seconds, and the answering of each supplementary question shall not exceed one minute. An answer shall be succinct, concise, and directly relevant to the question.
The reply to a written question on the Written Question Paper shall be given by delivering the same to the Clerk. A copy shall be supplied to the member who has asked the question, and the question and reply shall be printed in the Written Question Paper and in the Parliamentary Record. The minister should respond to a written question within 30 days of receipt by the minister. If the minister does not answer a written question asked by a member within 30 days of asking that question, the minister is to provide an explanation to the member asking that question.
Next was the dispensing of ministerial reports which were in use in previous sittings. The Standing Orders Committee Third Report to the Assembly was debated and noted in the parliament on 26 November 2009, together with resolutions of the Assembly to adopt recommendations of the Standing Orders Committee Report. Some of those I have just mentioned. One I did not mention was that the standing orders be amended to provide that general business be given precedence over government business on each Wednesday of each sitting week from 5.30 pm to 9 pm commencing from the first sitting period of 2010. That happens now and the opposition and the Independent take advantage of that increase in the time set aside for general business - again, another reform.
There was also an agreement for a review of the Estimates Committee hearing process including scheduling, length of time of ministers’ appearances, length of questions and a limited number of questions being asked of all agencies being submitted as written questions distributed to the agencies with agencies tabling the answers. The review of the Estimates Committee hearing process was to commence in 2010.
There were also some more notes: amendment to Standing Order 77 to extend the speech time limit on the adjournment debate to 10 minutes for each member dated Monday, 12 October 2009. It was changed to 5 minutes, which most people thought was just far too short. There was also amendment to Standing Order 41A(e) to extend the time for the automatic adjournment of the Assembly on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays to 10.30 pm. The Standing Orders Committee also agreed that an additional sitting week be included in the sittings schedule instead of Monday sitting days in February, August and October.
Another item was that the government’s reports be available under freedom of information, free of charge. This was approved under government regulations, 24 February 2010. There was also a requirement to establish a review panel to review the location of the prison. I was interested in hearing what the member for Fong Lim had to say about this today. The review panel looked at the location of the new prison, prison camps and work camps. I have always supported a new prison because the present one is just a dark hole. I pushed strongly for the new prison to be built on the existing site, or at Berrimah Farm. If you read Hansard that was my original belief of where it should go. After a number of meetings with this review panel, and the meetings I had were with experts who dealt with prison design and other factors involved in prisons and the running of prisons, I was convinced that a new prison could go on neither of those sites and the best site is where it is today.
I am happy to go through with anyone who has the time, the reasons why the new prison could not go on the existing site because there are many reasons. It was complex and I attended a number of meetings to try to convince the panel that it was a better place. I simply had to listen to reason rather than just pretend it could actually happen. When you have experts tell you the facts why a site is no good, it is either a very brave or a foolish politician who would ignore that advice.
The next one was about examining alternative options to one large prison and investigate prison farms for Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine and Darwin. This part of the agreement was to look at alternatives to a big prison such as prison farms and work camps. There is now a work camp at Tennant Creek. There are plans for a work camp and a prison farm at Katherine. I am not a great fan of big prisons. However, when the experts show you that there is an increase in prison population, you realise no matter what you do, no matter what programs you put in place to try to reduce the number of prisoners entering our prison system, it will take quite a few years before you change that.
The statistics and the figures show that we are likely to reach 1000 in a few years time. I hope that is not the case, but if you are going to reach that number, you have to have somewhere to hold those prisoners. Hopefully, they will not stay in that prison but be taken to places like the prison farm at Katherine or work camps. I also hope there will be a vegetable farm within the new prison, and that can be expanded to a full farm.
The caravan park legislation passed today in parliament will require the goodwill of owners to set up caravan park agreements, but that is better than it was before. The important bit is the amendments which give some breathing space to residents if, for whatever reason, a park closes down. I will always remember what happened to the residents of Sundowner Caravan Park.
When it was raised today in parliament about what had happened to vendor disclosure – yes, I had been wondering what had happened to it, as it had been passed in this parliament. However, it has been delayed because of problems getting an agreement with the industry, that is, the real estate industry and associated people, about the standard form of contract which will incorporate the legislation. Hopefully, the mention of this in parliament today will make those involved in fixing up this contract get a move on.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will speak on two things. Today, the first thing I want to do is correct the record in a small way. During the MPI, I referred to the demountables that are at the waterfront as the sales office. Clearly that is not correct, so I want to correct the record. The minister correctly identified the sales office, and the demountables at the waterfront are not the sales office. I presume they would be the construction office or whatever else at some point in the future. The demountables, nevertheless, are there, but I think that whilst a small correction is worthwhile doing, because I do believe in trying to be as thorough as I possibly can. So I correct the record formally in relation to that, and if anything flows from that, then I am a big boy, and I will cop it on the chin.
I also rise tonight to comment on the media release of today from the Police Association relating to ‘one punch’ legislation. This was the legislation voted down by this government despite the fact that the eyes of the widow of Sergeant Brett Meredith were cast upon them, and I do recall that vote. Whilst the government was dividing against the wishes of the widow, Amy Meredith, the fact was that not one of them could bring themselves to look at her while they were doing it. I note that the Police Association today has decided to throw their support behind the concept of ‘one punch’ homicide. I welcome the comments made by the association President, Vince Kelly, and I am grateful to the association for their support for this commonsense legislation.
The government has proven itself churlish and resistant to this legislation for no other reason than, I suspect, the political advantage of having a point of difference with the Country Liberals. What I say to government is, very well, if you want to have a point of difference, have a point of difference, but find points of difference which are not going to upset so many Territorians. I know that many police officers were disappointed, and I know many other people in the community were disappointed when the government chose to take their belligerent point of view in relation to this particular legislative instrument. Despite the rather demeaning comments by government in relation to my motives and the motives of others of bringing this legislation into this House, the fact remains that this is a good law. It exists in other jurisdictions, and there is no reason why it should not exist in this jurisdiction but for this government’s intransigence when it comes to it.
I am revisiting the legislative instrument and I hope that in the near future I will be able to give notice of a similar legislative instrument, not the same, that will have a similar effect to what was sought the last time around. There is growing public support behind this legislative instrument. I know the widow of Sergeant Brett Meredith, Sergeant Amy Meredith, is a strident campaigner for the introduction of this sort of law. I have spoken to her on numerous occasions in the past; indeed, I spoke to her this evening about this particular issue. I am proud to announce that I have her support in pursuing this matter through this Legislative Assembly again. It is a worthwhile thing to do and I would be very grateful if the government could be less intransigent on this occasion than they were the last time around.
They are not garnering public support around this issue; they do not have public support with their resistance to this issue. King hits in pubs should not in any way be mitigated by the issues that surround the law of manslaughter in relation to acts of negligence and intent.
I will be a proud Attorney-General should we win the next Territory election and ensure this legislation becomes law of the Northern Territory. If it does not on the introduction of the legislation, which I hope to do soon - if the government continues to remain implacable in its resistance to it, should there be a change of government there will be a change of law in relation to this legislative instrument. The government will receive a substantial submission from the Police Association into this matter, and I urge the government to cast a far more benevolent eye upon that submission than they have on this legislation up to this point.
The law and order problems of the Northern Territory have done nothing but climb under this government. The victimisation rates we saw released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics today demonstrate the high levels of crime and victimisation in our community. If you compare them to the Australian average and across some other jurisdictions, we are in the stratosphere. Whilst the government may take the position these victimisation rates have improved slightly - up or down - it is like something in the stratosphere gaining or losing a couple of hundred feet of altitude when we should be flying in the stratosphere if not, ideally, at sea level. Most other jurisdictions are in the troposphere; however, the government of the Northern Territory has overseen a violence against the person rate which is simply borderline astronomical.
The signal this government sends saying they are tough on crime is not reflected in the legislative instruments they bring before this House. When you bring legislative instruments into this House that are tough on crime, they resist it stridently.
I commit myself, should I become the Attorney-General of the Northern Territory, to ensuring the legislative instruments that are required will be in place to give the community comfort that, should they become the victim of a crime, they will know there will be a responsive legislative structure in place for their needs as victims. That legislative structure will have the interest of the victims at heart. So it is with the one punch legislation, and so it will be with any number of other legislative instruments should the Country Liberals form government.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I want to talk about Stronger Futures. Last week in adjournment, the member for Macdonnell spoke about concerns of the Mt Liebig store in having being named adversely in a submission to the Senate inquiry into Stronger Futures, by consultant company, Remote Retail Services. It was pleasing to learn that there had been a written apology by Remote Retail Services to the Mt Liebig store and an undertaking that the reference would be removed from the submission.
Nonetheless, I was completely gobsmacked to hear the member for Macdonnell say:
Some things never cease to amaze me about the member for Macdonnell, her awesome cheekiness, and, equally, her complete disregard for her own appalling record, in this case in relation to community stores.
One of the major policy objectives for Stronger Futures relates to stores on Aboriginal communities, both in governance and food security. There will be a licensing system for stores based on achieving these important objectives. Clause 46 of the act proposes the matters which must be considered when determining whether to grant a licence to a community store. One of the major factors in this consideration is:
Given their opposition to Stronger Futures, and any regulation of remote stores, the question for the CLP is how they would achieve adequate standards for food security and governance.
The CLP’s position on Stronger Futures unravels when one looks at the appalling record of the member for Macdonnell in relation to these issues, catalogued in the Walkley Award-winning book King Brown Country written by Russell Skelton. Given this history, her opposition to Stronger Futures comes as no surprise. Prior to the publication of this book, when the member for Macdonnell was on this side of the House and under attack from the CLP opposition, she told us these were made-up stories with no basis in truth. That is why we defended her; we believed her.
However, now we see the content of this book, published in 2010, which has never been challenged by the member for Macdonnell, either legally or in the public domain, including this parliament. In this context, we must conclude the contents of this book are true and accurate, showing the member for Macdonnell in her true light.
One of the issues raised by Skelton in his book relates to a situation that Stronger Futures aims to stop; namely, the way in which funds generated by the Papunya community store were scandalously misused. According to Skelton, this occurred when the member for Macdonnell was Town Clerk. Skelton described how:
That quote is on page 63. This contemptible misuse of funds, which Stronger Futures aims to stop, was called ‘Motor Car Dreaming; described as:
The store manager at Papunya at the time, Mr John Verek, described it as follows:
According to King Brown Country this debased form of governance - which Stronger Futures aims to stop - including the actual distribution of motor vehicles, was reportedly overseen by the member for Macdonnell herself. To quote from King Brown Country:
This was despite warnings from Mr Peter Vroom the council bookkeeper who would routinely point out:
Madam Deputy Speaker, the opposition opposes any action to correct the governance of such stores. I ask them to consider the suffering of the people who depend on these stores in remote regions. In the case of Papunya store, a significant proportion of the money came from price gouging. I quote from King Brown Country page 65:
I am not saying this behaviour is dishonest in the legal sense, but it is despicable. Here is someone who has set herself up as a defender, a champion, a saviour of Indigenous rights. However, in King Brown Country, we learn that she insisted on price gouging in that remote store, ripping off needy, vulnerable Indigenous people on necessities like food, so she could benefit personally with the car she used to shop elsewhere for herself. One also has to ask whether Commonwealth tax was paid on that vehicle.
Another compelling reason why the Commonwealth should have the power to stop this sort of debauched governance of a community store is also evident on page 47. This is about another store manager in Papunya, Mr Byerley:
It says later that he was given 24 hours to leave the community. This represents a massive conflict of interest and debauched governance, the sort that would deserve close scrutiny as part of the measures proposed in Stronger Futures.
Important questions must now be asked in relation to the untenable policy position of the CLP in relation to Stronger Futures, particularly the Opposition Leader. Over the past few months, we have heard the CLP argue against any action to improve the governance of community stores. Do they condone the reported role of the member for Macdonnell and others chronicled in King Brown Country? In particular the debauched governance of the Papunya store, price gouging, individuals, including the member for Macdonnell personally profiteering with a vehicle through ‘Motor Car Dreaming’, incredible conflicts of interest including prohibiting the store from operating on weekends because it competed with her personal business, and last, the repugnant face of bullying towards employees?
Does the Leader of the Opposition condone this behaviour? Is the Leader of the Opposition prepared to defend the member for Macdonnell publicly against the damaging material in King Brown Country?
If the Leader of the Opposition is not willing to publicly defend the member for Macdonnell who has not rebutted these allegations, either in court, in the media or in this parliament, he obviously believes the contents of King Brown Country. In that case, how can the Leader of the Opposition maintain his policy position of opposition to Stronger Futures, given the picture of debauched governance of the Papunya store? How can the Leader of the Opposition allow the member for Macdonnell to continue as shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Indigenous Policy? How could the Leader of the Opposition even contemplate making her a minister in any government he might lead? He needs to assure Territorians that he never will.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 5/6 Gray Primary School students accompanied by Ms Heather Reed, Mr Cliff Walton, Ms Felisa Morgan and Constable Alphonsus Shields.
On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to our visitors.
Members: Hear, hear!
CARAVAN PARKS BILL
(Serial 190)
(Serial 190)
Continued from 1 December 2011.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I note at the outset last week the Northern Territory government announced a massive legislative program for this parliament. We had about an hour-and-a-half last week, nothing on Thursday and, now, we find ourselves dealing with the Caravan Parks Bill, the only bill to come before this House today. If this is their idea of hard work - goodness gracious me! - it is small wonder the Territory is in the condition it is. They tell us and Territorians they have a legislative program which is fulsome but, frankly, having worked for an hour-and-a-half on that legislative program last week and, now, we find on the first day of the second week we only have one bill to deal with, it is somewhat disappointing.
This bill is what I would call an ‘oops’ bill. In fact, no, more than an ‘oops’ bill; it is a ‘monumental cluster’ bill on the grounds that it seeks to repeal the current caravan parks legislation which, although passed by this House some two years ago, continues to not be assented to and is not gazetted, as far as I am aware. It, clearly, does not operate as a legislative instrument of the Northern Territory.
The other bill created such an onerous environment that I am sure many caravan park operators were very much against the Caravan Parks Bill in its original form. I do not doubt for one second the government will claim to have support of the caravan operators for this bill in its current form. The reason I do not doubt that is because this is a long way away from the onerous burdens which were placed on the caravan park operators as a result of the first bill which was passed by the Assembly, but never passed into law.
We have to remember there is a bit of history behind this legislative instrument which, basically, comes down to the events which occurred surrounding the Sundowner Caravan Park which, as I understand, upset many of the local residents who had been there for some time.
The member for Nelson, before he became the Rob Oakeshott of the Northern Territory parliament said: ‘Yay, this is wonderful, there is my big opportunity to rescue all of these downtrodden people’. Frankly, the member for Nelson made a great deal of political mileage out of it - and no doubt was genuine in the message he was trying to send to the residents of Sundowner. He has subsequently presided over, in his agreement with the Northern Territory government, a legislative instrument that has sat on the shelf for two years and not achieved at all what the member for Nelson said it was going to achieve.
Now, we find a legislative instrument in this House which is, essentially, a huge retreat from the position outlined in the original legislative instrument in this House. This retreat is, essentially, a complete capitulation to the original position that operated under the common law in the Northern Territory. Caravan parks are not subject to operation under the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act alone, so, the common law has tended to apply. As a consequence, the abandonment of this issue, essentially for two years until this date, demonstrates the common law - with possibly the exception of the Sundowner example, and I will return to that in a second - has operated perfectly well and to the satisfaction of the participants, both residents and owners, between that time and this.
We have a specific instance which has given rise to a legislative instrument which some people will claim created an injustice. Nothing prevented the residents of the Sundowner Caravan Park from scraping a few shekels together and seeking an injunction through the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory whilst they made their case. It is within the provisions of the common law to enable residents in long-term caravan parks -- and this has occurred in other jurisdictions - to argue that they have set down roots into a place that gives them a greater proprietoral existence than they would if they were mere transients. Evidence, then, would be taken from a court in relation to such an injunction and subsequent decision as to their rights, which would then examine those components of the arrangement between the caravan park owner and the resident as to whether or not they have put down some sort of roots.
That things would be done on a case-by-case basis. So, if a resident could walk into a court and argue they had put down roots because they had ripped the wheels off the caravan they had wheeled on to that site, put an awning there, grown plants around it, and made all of the decisions which would indicate a sense of permanency, it would give guidance to a court.
Equally so, a resident could well live in a caravan park for 20 years, but do everything that is necessary to demonstrate they were expecting to leave at any moment. If a resident maintained the caravan, its pressure in its tyres, ensured there were no awnings attached, etcetera, and lived like that for 20 years, a caravan park owner could well argue it was anticipated as it was always within the mind of that resident to be able to depart at any time.
Permanency may be established in a short period of time by virtue of the conduct of the resident and the caravan park owner, or permanency or temporariness may also extend over a long period of time by virtue of the conduct of the caravan park owner and the resident. These are things that should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. I suggest - but would not put words into the mouth of the court - the residents of the Sundowner Caravan Park could have made a substantial claim through a court to assert that they had engaged in permanency in the caravan park and had started to exert certain proprietoral rights. That was never tested and the argument will run: ‘It is always too expensive to have a court fight’.
However, the answer for government, and the member for Nelson, was to set up something more expensive, which are the administrative structures about managing a caravan park’s instrumentality. That was done. It was created and pushed through this House on the numbers. Everyone said it was going to be the rescue of the caravan park’s residents, except the owners hated it. Of course, every time government interferes with private business, it always does it to the detriment of the parties involved.
So, in an effort to protect the residents of caravan parks, the caravan park owners had to respond by starting to evict people within a particular period. All of a sudden, caravan park owners were saying: ‘We are going to have to move permanent residents on simply because we do not want to be captured by this legislative instrument’.
What we have here now is ‘the compromise’. I argue, for all the reasons I have outlined so far, the compromise is utterly unnecessary and, frankly, the status quo – that is, the common law position - should be maintained. Whilst that particular instance was upsetting for some people, the truth of the matter is that a caravan park, as a general principle, as a beginning assumption, asserts a certain amount of transitoriness in how it operates over the people who choose to live there. That assumption in favour of transitoriness can be defeated in the system I have just described but, nevertheless, it is, essentially, a transitory environment.
If I have read the current bill correctly - and I believe I have - that transitoriness exists with a simple concept: if someone sticks the sign ‘tourist park operator’ out the front of their caravan park, this bill ceases to effectively operate, returning you to the common law position and, moreover, defeating the common law assumption in favour of certain permanency when that permanency can be established. It now places permanent residents, where such a sign exists, in a less powerful position than they would have been under the common law processes.
The problem this side of the House has with this legislative instrument is it has simply failed to do what the member for Nelson and the government promised. Its predecessor has not come into operation. This compromise is little more than a face-saving exercise for both the member for Nelson and the government. They will argue all the good reasons this is good law and the member for Port Darwin will be putting words into their mouths. However, this is not what was promised to the residents of caravan parks and, frankly, one of the best things government can do in relation to the operation of business is get out of the way!
This is an example where we should simply get out of the way because we have loaded into this legislative instrument nothing more than a system which will create a bureaucracy which will have the effect of policing something that can be nullified by the erection of a simple sign.
We, on this side of the House, are underwhelmed that the legislative instrument is going to achieve anything other than something else a bureaucracy somewhere is going to have to maintain. The processes which were captured in this bill are not entirely unlike what is already ascribed to the common law. It places certain parameters and time frames on it, but that is about it. Frankly, it is a disappointing place we have come to, considering the fanfare and the noise made by both government and the member for Nelson when the original bill was brought to this House.
One of things people in the community are becoming irritated with is how the arrangement between the member for Nelson and the Northern Territory government is amounting to not much at all. If you go through the original agreement between the member for Nelson and government, all of which should have been put in place by now, so little has been achieved. The member for Nelson spends much time talking about the need for compromise and bipartisanship but, frankly, the compromise the member for Nelson has agreed to has enabled a government to stay in power through an agreement. Then, applying an approach of compromise the member for Nelson has applied, it has led to the agreement largely being shelved.
Yes, some elements of the agreement are in place such as container deposit legislation. We do not need to talk about how that has gone over in the public domain regarding its management and operation. However, other components simply have not operated. How many quarterly meetings have been held between the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Nelson, and the Chief Minister - one, two? I do not know. I spoke to the Leader of the Opposition this morning and he indicated just one. There are any number of other areas where this agreement has not been honoured - and it is has been to the detriment, according to the member for Nelson, of Territorians.
Vendor disclosure legislation is one. I am no great fan of the vendor disclosure legislation just quietly; I believe the system operates in the Northern Territory particularly well. However, when was that law gazetted? When did that law become operational in the Northern Territory? It was a core plank of the agreement and, yet, I cannot find a reference to the gazettal of the vendor disclosure legislation. Perhaps I can be corrected by the government on this particular issue.
The Humpty Doo district plan - have we seen that anywhere? The establishment of the city of Weddell - we have gone through a planning process, but nothing in relation to an establishment. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
The process of compromise, the member for Nelson would argue, is the process to good governance. So far, what I have seen through this process is the process for compromise has led to the government continuing to do as it pleases, without the member for Nelson effectively asserting any real results arising out of the agreement he has with government. The problem I have with this agreement is that, ultimately, it was never enforced - and never effectively enforced. The caravan parks legislation is just one more example of that.
We do not support this caravan park legislation, and we did not support it the last time around. It is just a way to interfere with good and proper businesses in the Northern Territory. I know the argument will come that these poor residents who choose to live in caravan parks because it is affordable, do not have the means to fight the fights they have to fight in relation to protecting their own interests, so we will establish a legislative instrument which means government will have to protect their interests. However, effectively, it still means they will, essentially, have fewer or no more rights, and the erection of a simple sign will deprive them of the rights they currently have.
Madam Speaker, this is not a good legislative instrument. I often think we pass way too much legislation in this House, simply to enable people to have a face-saving position. This looks, smells, tastes, and feels like a face-saving legislative instrument. If the member for Nelson wants to bring honesty into this House, he will make that admission, because this is a substantial departure from what he promised to the residents of the Sundowner Caravan Park two years ago.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Port Darwin for his views on this new legislation. To a large extent, I actually agree with him. We may, at another time and in another place, discuss the agreement. However, in relation to this particular matter, it is certainly different than the previous legislation.
We need to go back in history a little. Originally, this legislation was promised by the CLP government. It promised it would introduce it but, as time moved on, the CLP government was replaced and that legislation just did not happen.
Of course, there was the matter in relation to the Sundowner Caravan Park which, I should say, was not just about people who could only afford to live in caravan parks. If you had spoken to those people as I had, a number of those people were quite well off but preferred to live in caravan parks because they like that style of living.
I also ask why it is okay for people who live in flats, units, and houses and pay rent on those houses to have protection, and it is not all right for people who live in caravans. What is the distinction? We could argue it is the right of someone in business not to be interfered with by legislation, and those people own a whole block of flats. Why have any interference in that as well?
The member for Port Darwin, I understand, is far more advanced in matters relating to common law and all those sorts of things. I try to look at things as they are. Where people have been treated unjustly I believe it is appropriate that people speak up for them, regardless of where they live. People are protected under the Residential Tenancies Act and I have always felt people who live in caravans should also be protected.
So, we are where we are today. I tried to introduce the caravan park legislation some time back as standalone legislation and it was defeated. The government introduced its amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act and it passed. There was quite a lot of debate about whether there had been adequate consultation in the case of the legislation I brought forward. I travelled the length and breadth of the Territory talking to owners and distributing a survey form to tenants. The varying views of the tenants are one of the problems in this whole discussion; it varies from place to place. I was criticised by some tenants as rocking the boat as they were happy as they were. I suppose that is fine.
However, the case was there were people in Sundowner Caravan Park who were happy until they were kicked out and it was seen there was no protection. The member for Port Darwin said they could have taken them to court. I am not sure if you can get 65 people in a caravan park organised to do that, to be honest with you. They are very independent people. The member for Port Darwin might have been able to give some advice at that stage on how that could have been done, but it was certainly not an issue which was raised at the time.
I understand the government has introduced this legislation after a great deal of consultation with the caravan park industry, and they have travelled the length and the breadth and have had many meetings. I agree with the member for Port Darwin; this is certainly a watered down version of the original act. I suppose I see this also as an evolution in the way caravan parks will evolve in the Territory, as they have in other parts of Australia. There is legislation in other parts of Australia that protects long-term caravan park people. So, it is nothing new, but it is new for the Northern Territory. Obviously, there is some resistance to it. The government has at least gone around and renegotiated with caravan park owners.
There is no doubt this legislation will depend on the goodwill of caravan park owners otherwise, as the member for Port Darwin said, you can put a sign up - or you do not have to, because most of the people with long-term caravan park residents already have a sign up saying ‘tourist accommodation’. If you read clause 10 of the bill, it is clear that is what it is about. It says:
(1) This Act applies to a caravan park agreement, made on or after the commencement of this section, that specifies the period of the occupancy granted under the agreement is for the prescribed period or more.
(2) If it is intended that a person will occupy a caravan and caravan site, or a caravan site, in a caravan park under a caravan park agreement for a period less than the prescribed period ...
Which, as I said, is less than 12 months:
- ... Parts 2 to 16 do not apply to the agreement even if the person and operator enter into a further agreement and the combined periods under the agreements is a continuous period for the prescribed period or more.
(3) If a caravan park is advertised as being for ‘holiday accommodation’ or ‘tourist accommodation’, Parts 2 to 16 do not apply to an agreement for an occupancy in the caravan park even if the period of the occupancy is for the prescribed period or more.
Some of these are common sense. It also says it says does not apply to persons who do not pay rent, or who do not pay rent in return for services provided, or part of an agreement looking after homeless, unemployed or disadvantaged persons, or family and friends paying a nominal rent, or in a moveable dwelling or mobile home not located in a caravan park.
If a caravan park owner does want to include Parts 2 to 15 of the act in a caravan park agreement, regardless of section 10(1) to (4), the owner can. The reality of this part of the legislation is it will depend, as I said, on the goodwill of the owner. If that owner recognises that people who live in a caravan park for more than the prescribed period - which is more than 12 months - should have some rights under the law, then they will be covered by a caravan park agreement. After all, those who rent a house or flat do, so why not people in caravan parks?
Of course, there has been some resistance from some caravan park owners, and it was fairly disgraceful that some caravan park owners put up their caravan park rates for long-term residents, even before the government’s original legislation was enacted. Of course, we know, as the member for Port Darwin said, the legislation was never enacted.
In the long term, I believe forward-thinking park owners will realise this legislation is not a threat, but a way of having a good relationship between long-term caravan park residents and management. After all, it is these long-term caravan park residents who keep most parks, mainly in the Top End, going especially during the Wet Season.
Yes, management can get around it by saying their park is a holiday park or holiday accommodation, or if a person only occupies a caravan for less than the prescribed period, which is less than 12 months, and renews that same caravan park agreement each year. However, as time goes by, residents staying longer than 12 months will be seen as an asset to the park and not just a Wet Season or off season source of income. I believe owners will see the benefits in the long term and, for those owners who wish to use the legislation to better their park in attracting those longer-term residents, they will now have the legislative backing to do so.
It should be noted that in the previous legislation 90 days would have been the prescribed period, and this has now been extended to 12 months. This is a change asked for by the industry. Hopefully, changes like that will mean that owners will consider treating residents not just on a year-by-year basis, but as longer-term residents with caravan park agreements as written in Part 3 of the act.
There are a number of changes which vary from the original bill the government introduced and appear to be reasonable, especially one that I was lobbied by owners for, which was the power of eviction, especially for violent behaviour. I notice, of course, that caravan park rules are also mentioned under section 139. I had a query as to why those park rules could not also be incorporated in the beginning of the act so they apply to anyone coming to the park. However, as I said, I believe this legislation will evolve with time and caravan parks in the Northern Territory will move into a different era and work in parallel with other caravan parks throughout Australia.
One of the reasons for pushing this legislation was when the residents of Sundowner Caravan Park in Berrimah, in December 2006, were told to get out with very little notice because the land had been sold and a shopping complex was going to be built on the site. They were given two weeks to get out, but thanks to some local lobbying and help from the then Chief Minister, the time was extended. I say to anyone who passes the old caravan park site, have a look at the sign that is up there announcing the opening of a new shopping complex. It has been there for five years and the land is still vacant. You really have to ask why those people were moved in the first place.
It is good to see the amendments introduced today giving some protection from eviction by adding clauses 177A, 177B and 177C. These amendments gives protection to residents who have lived at the park for more than five years, which means, according to the circumstances of section 102 or 103, there is a time between 42 days and three months before a person has to leave the park.
I hope caravan park owners will not see this legislation as something to avoid, but as a tool for lifting their park to a professional and respectful relationship with long-term residents. Through the agreement, it will mean the responsibilities of those residents and owners are clearly spelt out. This is very important, especially for long-term residents, many of whom regard living in caravan parks as living in their home - something I believe some politicians who have never spoken to the residents of long-term caravan parks do not understand or comprehend. Time will tell if this legislation does what it was intended to do, and if park owners take up the challenge of doing the right thing by their residents. If the legislation does need more teeth, then that should be looked at after, say, at least two years of operation, when it should be reviewed. I am interested to hear what residents have to say. I listen to what residents have to say and I hear the complaints. I hear nothing has been done and they have no rights to get any changes.
I am also interested, in light of the fact this bill has some ‘get out’ clauses, whether those caravan park owners put up their fees from long term to tourist rates in 2010 when the amendments to the Tenancy Bill were debated in parliament but never enacted. Would owners of those caravan parks now do the right thing and return those rates to what they were before? I do not know.
I thank the caravan park owners and the NT Caravan Park Association for their assistance in putting this legislation together. Also, the Department of Justice staff who travelled all over the Territory talking to the caravan park industry.
Madam Speaker, yes, it is not the legislation originally put forward to this parliament. However, I sometimes think you have to have a touch of reality as well. Even if that legislation had gone forward previously, you could get around it. I spoke to quite a few caravan park owners who said exactly that. If you are going to introduce legislation - and I probably learn as I go along - you have to bring the people the legislation is to affect with you.
This legislation, even though it may not achieve all the things I want it to, at least is a start because, before that, we had nothing - absolutely nothing. At least we have something now and we can work on it. I hope the government continues to look at the plight of people in caravan parks. With the cost of living, the cost of housing, the cost of land, there is more pressure on people to look for caravan parks as an option to live, and they should be entitled to some protection.
I am certainly happy to talk to caravan park owners as this legislation unfolds. I have a good relationship with caravan park owners. Even if I had my barnies with a couple of them, we are still on talking terms. That is part of the debate you have when you are dealing with legislation that affects them.
I have a number of caravan parks in my electorate and it is important there is a growing recognition that those people should be given at least some protection - not no protection. The amendments introduced today in parliament are the very amendments which were needed when Sundowner closed down. They, at least, say to the owner of the park they must give people a certain amount of time to get out of the caravan park. You have to remember, at Sundowner, there were people who had lived there, in some cases, for 15 years. People had quite substantial annexes and gardens, and for them to just pack up in two weeks was an impossibility. It was very difficult for those people to find places. Eventually, most people did, but they needed that extra time. At least the amendments brought forward today will do that.
The member for Port Darwin spoke about the agreement I have with the Chief Minister. It does not mean an agreement 100% on every particular part of that agreement; it never has, and it probably never will. Certain things in that agreement are still being worked on. There are some things I am not particularly happy with either; however, if I was to bark every time there was something I did not quite get, we would not get anywhere.
Undoubtedly, there are some issues that still need to be …
Mr Elferink: Some!
Mr WOOD: There are some issues that still need to be addressed. Well, if you would like me to go through the agreement in a debate one day we might do that. However, I do not have the agreement in front of me and I do not intend to talk off the top of my head about matters I have not been prepared to talk about today.
I came here to talk about the caravan park legislation. It is an important evolution in the way caravan parks will be run in the Northern Territory. For many years, caravan parks have operated as back yard industry-type facilities. There were caravan parks in Nightcliff and other suburbs. The Sundowner and the Overlander would not have been regarded as 5-star caravan park facilities, but they were facilities which were needed because people needed to find a place to live. I have a caravan park in the middle of my electorate, on Wallaby Holtze Road, which you certainly would not give a 5-star accreditation to. However, the people who live there are people who cannot afford anything better than what is there. It is an important place, and those people also need protection from being evicted at short notice. Many of them would have no other place to go.
If I get knocked for believing that one should stick up for people and I only do it for political purposes, well, I will let other people make that judgment. However, I hope I can stand here occasionally, as another human being, and say people who are under threat from being evicted from a home is not a political matter, it is a human rights issue. That is the reason I stood up for the people in the Sundowner Caravan Park: it was the right thing to do.
Sundowner Caravan Park is not in my electorate anymore. What is left of it is in the member for Fong Lim’s electorate. In fact, of the people who moved, a number of them now live in the Summer Institute of Linguistics’ property, which is also still in the Fong Lim electorate. They were grateful, at that time, that Mr Anictomatis allowed those people to move into that area; there were some facilities for them. However, there were other people who really struggled to find accommodation. That was worth fighting for.
If this legislation has failings, it does not have a failing when it comes to the section that has been brought in today about the eviction time. I believe that is a really important part.
Yes, I believe the legislation does fail, in some ways, to achieve what it originally set out to do. However, I do not think that would have been achievable because I know, through talking to caravan park owners, they already had their way around that previous legislation. This legislation, at least, has been developed in conjunction with talking to those caravan park owners and the NT Caravan Park Association. As I said, those caravan park owners could see the benefit of retaining long-term caravan park residents; that a good relationship between themselves and those residents can be achieved using the good things that are in this legislation. I believe they will take that on.
Certainly, it only covers a minority of the people who visit caravan parks, but it is an important minority. Instead of making judgments today about whether it will be effective or not, we need to make those judgments over time. As I said, I am sure this legislation will be reviewed, and I am certain it will be amended if necessary. As much as it certainly does not go down the path of an enforceable agreement, at least it sets the foundations for both residents and caravan park owners so they know if they do set up one of these agreements, it is clear they see the responsibility is on both sides, and that is a good thing in itself.
Madam Speaker, I support the legislation. I hope the government will review it, and will continue discussions with caravan park owners and the NT Caravan Park Association. They have set up a good rapport with them now, and they need to work with them, also bearing in mind they should keep in contact with residents. I say again that I know residents, in some cases, who are scared to complain about the standard of roads, trees, or long grass in their park because they are scared of being evicted. We should also ensure, in any future discussions on this legislation, we try to, at least, get a sampling of what residents in the parks think so we can get a good cross-section of the views. Let us hope this legislation then can be developed and improved, and make our parks a better place for long-term people to live.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I would not mind saying a couple of words on this legislation.
First, how wonderful it was to hear from the member for Nelson on this issue. It is something he is passionate about and has fought hard for. I believe it is fair to say he is the Don Quixote of the Northern Territory parliament, riding in here on his white horse, complete with lance and shiny silver armour, fighting those windmills. He is out there finding problems that do not exist, meanwhile ignoring the plight of a majority of Territorians.
It was interesting to hear the member for Port Darwin calling him the Rob Oakeshott of the Northern Territory parliament. I do not believe there is a title more fitting – he is the Rob Oakeshott of this parliament: a happy-go-lucky character with bizarre, zany ideas on which the government pegs its hopes of staying in power.
He summed it up here. He said he understands this legislation will not work, that it will need reforms and reviews, but he is on a crusade and he is going to drive this through the parliament, using his power and the agreement he has with the Chief Minister - the king maker - to get in and help many people who actually do not have a problem. Great to see, member for Nelson. It is too bad you are so misguided.
It might be of interest to members of this place: I lived in a caravan park for a while. I was 18 years old and spent six months living in a caravan park with a bunch of my mates. We did it to save money at the time, and it was a good experience. We knew at any stage, at the drop of a hat, we could be kicked out. That is the nature of living in a caravan park. You understand you are there on a temporary basis, that you are living from day-to-day on the right to be there. Of course, if the caravan park owners go bust or the business is sold, everything is up in the air; you do not know whether you will be moved out. That is just a fact of life.
It is like living on a block of land where you have a Power and Water Corporation easement going through the back of your block of land. You can sit there, in some cases, for 15, 20 or 30 years and nothing happens. However, you always have it in the back of your mind that one day Power and Water might come in with their excavator and dig a great big hole in the back of your block, and you are powerless to do anything about it. That is just a reality.
That is what you know before you go into a caravan park: that you are there on a temporary basis. Trying to give caravan park people some type of permanent hold over a site, irrespective of market conditions and of the strength or failure of the business where you are renting a site, I believe is just absolute lunacy.
It shows how crazy the member for Nelson can be. It shows how quixotic he is, and it shows why the comparison with Rob Oakeshott is so fair. The fact is, if the member for Nelson was concerned about the cost of living pressures on people who live in caravan parks, and the price of rents people pay in caravan parks, he might actually start advocating for more caravan parks ...
Mr Wood: I have.
Mr TOLLNER: I believe we need more caravan parks. He is sitting there saying he has tried to push for more caravan parks in the Northern Territory. Well, in that regard, he has been a complete failure. Whilst the government will sit here and nod along - and I do not see a great deal of enthusiasm, by the way, coming from the government for this legislation. I do not see half-a-dozen speakers ready to jump to support the quixotic member for Nelson. They are doing this out of reluctance because they know this is the price of a deal which the member for Nelson did - the Rob Oakeshott of the Northern Territory parliament - with the Chief Minister.
That is why they are sitting there, nodding along and saying: ‘Okay, reluctantly we will support this piece of lunacy. We will support trying to mess things up’. The fact of the matter is, he should get out there and push this government to create more caravan parks around the community. However, the member for Nelson said he does not bark every time he does not get what he wants. Well, ain’t that a fact! He does not bark every time he does not get what he wants.
He wanted the Howard Springs Nature Park fixed up. It is an absolute war zone out there at the moment; a scorched earth policy has been applied at Howard Springs. The place is a disgusting mess. I used to get out there quite regularly with my kids years ago ...
Mr Wood: When did you last go out there?
Mr TOLLNER: Well, the last time I was there was a couple of months ago, member for Nelson. I noticed a complete lack of rainforest around the place. It looks like someone went a bit loony and had an acid trip while he was driving a D10 bulldozer. Goodness me! The place is an absolute wreck.
He has himself a brand spanking new $1bn prison going into his back yard. He does not seem to see a problem with that. In fact, he started off this term saying he was opposed to a new prison; that we could make do with what we currently have. But, because he will not bark every time he does not get something that he wants, the Chief Minister and the government decide, oh no, hang on, we will build this new prison ...
Mr KNIGHT: A point of order, Madam Speaker! We are talking about the caravan park legislation, not the ...
Mr TOLLNER: Absolutely, we are talking about it. We are talking about the failure of the member for Nelson ...
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim! Order! Standing Order 62, if you can come to the point of the bill, please.
Mr TOLLNER: I am coming to the point, Madam Speaker. This is wholly relevant to this bill, because the driving thing behind the bill is the quixotic nature of the member for Nelson. On one hand he says: ‘Oh no, we do not want a new prison’, but, then all of a sudden, he has some sort of epiphany …
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! He said a number of times I never wanted a new prison. That is incorrect.
Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.
Mr TOLLNER: No, it is not a point of order, Madam Speaker. He does want a new prison now. In actual fact, he wants it in his back yard.
The fact is, he had some concerns about an INPEX workers’ camp, but now he has that coming into his back yard. I am curious to know what the good citizens of the Nelson electorate think about the added congestion and traffic problems. Here is a fellow who comes into this place and says: ‘Oh no, you cannot subdivide below five acres’, but he is quite happy to have a 2500-man workers’ camp in his back yard, and a $1bn prison sitting in his back yard, clogging up the highways and roads of the Nelson electorate. This guy is beyond the pale.
He comes in here, two years after introducing this legislation into the parliament. There has not been a problem the whole way through but, now, he is back on his happy horse, on his white charger, all geared up, he has the lance out, he has the shiny armour on, and he is coming in here tilting at windmills. The guy is completely off the planet.
This is bizarre legislation. Surely, the parliament has better things to do with its time than sit here and determine legislation where legislation is not required.
Goodness me! Step out of your doorway, member for Nelson. Get out and have a look at the number of crimes and the amount of antisocial behaviour going on across the Northern Territory. Maybe take a bit of interest in that. Maybe take a bit of interest in your own constituents, when you promised almost four years ago they would have a swimming pool. Tell me, member for Nelson, where the hole is that they are going to put this swimming pool in. We have heard uphill and down dale from the member for Nelson about his great plans and what he has delivered for his electorate. They have a swimming pool going out there somewhere in the Northern Territory - it is non-existent. There is no swimming pool even on the horizon. It is just bizarre.
The member for Nelson has been a complete and utter failure in this term of government ...
Mr Wood: You have water on the brain.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Nelson!
Mr TOLLNER: I am wondering how long this guy can sit behind me and interject ...
Mr Wood: Well, you do the same thing.
Mr KNIGHT: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Clearly, the member for Fong Lim is failing to talk about the legislation. If you could draw your attention, member for Fong Lim, to the legislation – let us debate the legislation.
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker! It would not be unreasonable for a member of parliament to not only debate the legislation but also the motives for bringing that legislation before the House. It is not unreasonable for the motives to be examined, or at least postulated upon, by a member.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, if you can come to the point of the legislation. I refer you to Standing Order 67. I have given you a fair bit of leeway in this, and you may continue to have a level of leeway.
Member for Nelson, if you could try to contain yourself, please. It is difficult. I have called order a number of times; however, because the member for Fong Lim is so tall I cannot catch your eye.
Mr Wood: I have a problem with fairy tales, Madam Speaker. I do not believe them.
Madam SPEAKER: That is fine. Member for Fong Lim, if you can come to the point of the legislation, please.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, the fairytale of Don Quixote is quite apt in this case because we have the member for Nelson behind us - the Rob Oakeshott of the Territory parliament – figuratively, sitting on his white charger in his shiny armour, resplendent with lance, taking battle to a bunch of windmills; that is, in this legislation we have the member for Nelson pushing some agenda for a problem which does not exist.
A problem occurred two years ago at the Sundowner Caravan Park - the place was sold and a new person came in and said: ‘We do not want to operate a caravan park; we want to have a shopping centre’. People were given two week’s notice. I feel sorry for those people who were given two week’s notice, but anyone living in a caravan park knows that, at any time, you can be given two week’s notice to get out - whether you have been there for five minutes, five years, or 50 years. That is the reality of life in a caravan park.
I have lived in a caravan park and understood at the time we were completely susceptible to the whims of commercial life and of the owner of the caravan park as to whether you were there or not. Trying to entrench some type of entitlement on to caravan park owners, in this case, is wrong. I do not have people coming and knocking at my door saying: ‘Oh, we are going to support the member for Nelson’s legislation because people all over Darwin are getting done over by a bunch of evil caravan park owners’. No, it does not exist. This is crazy legislation.
The member for Daly is going to have to jump here and talk on this. It will be interesting to hear him say why he supports it, how good it is going to be for the Territory. However, for the life of me, I cannot see a reason why we would be sitting here debating this legislation when there are so many other important matters we should be turning our attention to.
For instance, the crime, antisocial behaviour, and lawlessness going on across the Northern Territory, or the fact we are a largely undeveloped economy and we need to create new opportunities for more people we want to move here. There is a whole range of things - our education system is an absolute shambles and the health system is a shambles. The government is completely led by those in Canberra, who have shown they are a complete shambles.
Are we concerning ourselves with that? No. The member for Nelson concerns himself with a problem that does not exist. He is completely quixotic. He has gone around the bend. I cannot understand why he would not save everyone time and say: ‘Let us pull this nonsense off the Notice Paper, I got it wrong’. He seemed to think he got it wrong with speed limits when he campaigned heavily to get rid of the speed limits this government put on our open highways. He changed his mind on that very quickly, doing a complete backflip, going from the leader of the campaign to abolish speed limits to being one of its greatest supporters. He did the same with prisons, where he supported keeping Berrimah prison exactly where it was and maintaining it and putting some work into it. He did an absolute backflip on that. He has done a backflip on his swimming pool idea in the rural area, because the swimming pool is non-existent, and we have not heard boo from him about that. He has done a backflip on saying he is going to try to fix roads and congestion in the rural area, because we now have a $1bn prison going into his back yard, and a 2500 man workers’ camp.
Goodness me! He readily says he does not bark every time he does not get what he wants. Well, the fact is, he never barks; he never does anything. He has delivered absolutely nought, zero, zilch, for his electorate. He has delivered nothing. Now, he is coming in here trying to beef himself up with this legislation ...
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Repetition, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order in relation to this, member for Nelson. However, member for Fong Lim, I remind you of Standing Order 67. I have allowed you a lot of leeway in this debate. If you can come back to the actual bill before us, please.
Mr TOLLNER: Absolutely, I am speaking about this bill! Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I am speaking absolutely about this bill because this bill, as I said, is a dog of a bill. The only reason we have the member for Nelson in here is because he has recognised he is a complete failure in all of these other areas. Now, he trots this nonsense in here, stands up and carries on like he understands; it is going to need reviews, it is going to have to be reformed, and it is going to have to be tinkered with.
Goodness gracious me! There is not a problem out there we are dealing with. Why do you introduce unnecessary legislation and, then, say in the same breath: ‘I know we have certain aspects of this wrong and we are going to have to review it, and we are going to have to reform it. We will have to change it’ ...
Mr Wood: I did not introduce it.
Mr TOLLNER: Goodness me. Behind me, he interjects that he did not introduce it ...
Mr Wood: It is the first time you have listened.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: The fact is, he drove this legislation right from the word go and, as much as he interjects and prevaricates, as much as he does not like anyone calling any attention to all of the failures - the string of failures he has left in his wake ...
Mr Wood: You are a failure!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: Goodness me! He jumps up and down, carries on like a pork chop and says: ‘We cannot talk about this and we cannot talk about that. Please do not draw attention to this; let us talk about the legislation’. Well, the legislation is like everything else he has ever done: it is a failure – it is an absolute failure!
Madam Speaker, I am not going to go on any longer. I thought it was worthwhile to say that this legislation is useless, the member for Nelson is well branded as the Rob Oakeshott of the Northern Territory parliament, and he is the Don Quixote of this parliament …
Mr Wood interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: … but he has absolutely done nothing for his electorate ...
Mr Wood interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: He has done nothing to stand up to this government in any way. He said he does not bark. Well, he said nothing truer there; he does not bark about anything. Now, he is coming in here masquerading that the government has put this up; that somehow or other, this is some idea of the government and he has had nothing to do with it. Goodness me! He realises that the thing is a dog; he is already trying to offload responsibility for it. He is doing everything he can to push the responsibility on to the government. He is doing everything he can to say: ‘No, government supports this, government supports this’. Well, government has been dragged to the table on this one ...
Mr Wood interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: Government has been dragged to the table. I believe government, to tell you the honest truth, is too lazy to bother doing anything to reform any industry. To have to reform an industry where there is not a problem is a bit of a problem for the government.
It would be a bit of a problem if the opposition was in government too. I have to tell you, we have a legislative agenda; we have things to do. The last thing we want to be doing is doing things where they do not need fixing. Like they say: ‘If it ain’t broke don’t fix it’. That is the exact fact of this situation we are talking about today.
Mr KNIGHT (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I was delighted to hear that contribution from the member for Fong Lim because it showed a few things. One is his ignorance of the credibility the member for Nelson has in his own electorate. I know the current member for Fong Lim ran for the seat of Nelson in – 1997, was it? I know he still does not like the Labor Party because we preferenced the Country Liberal Party before we preferenced him, and our preferences would probably have got him across the line as an Independent. He greatly touts how badly the Independents perform, but he sought to become an Independent in the very seat held by the current member for Nelson, which he holds quite successfully.
I put the challenge out for the member for Fong Lim, a betting man: I will put $1000 up that the member for Nelson retains his seat because of his popularity. I hope the betting man from Fong Lim takes me up on that offer. I know the popularity of the member for Nelson. He works very hard, understands his electorate, and also does his job. He has certainly represented the interests of the former residents of the Sundowner Caravan Park, and also the people of the rural area. Many things in the rural area are out of the member for Nelson’s control. The member for Fong Lim’s contribution also showed desperation.
Fortunately, member for Nelson, it looks like it might be your day today because there is desperation and lack of leadership on the other side of the House, and the lack of any policies. We are five months out from an election and there are no policies on the other side because they just have no ideas. They know the Labor government is dominating the policy agenda, dominating where the community wants to go. The Country Liberal Party has no policies, so what do they do?
They lack leadership on the other side of the House. The member for Blain is just vacant from that space; you never hear him. He asks two or three questions in Question Time, sits back down and everyone takes over. Last week was abysmal on the other side of the House ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr KNIGHT: What happens is the leadership of the member for Blain just crumbles and, then, the member for Fong Lim jumps up like he is now ...
Mr TOLLNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The Attorney-General was quite quick to jump up on his feet several times and call points of orders on relevance. Maybe he might want to take a few of his own pills and get a bit of relevance about this bill.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, resume your seat. Minister, I remind you ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Minister, if you can make your closing speech.
Mr KNIGHT: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The summing up is about the contributions that members have made, and I am summing up on the contribution made by the member for Fong Lim. What happens after the crumbling of the leadership of the member from Blain, is the member for Fong Lim steps up to the plate ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Consistent with the Attorney-General’s own observations, the member for Fong Lim never mentioned the member for Blain. Just tell him to get on with his job.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, resume your seat. Minister, if you can come to the point of the bill in your summing up.
Mr KNIGHT: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As some latitude was afforded the member for Fong Lim, I am just moving in that area ...
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, if you can just come to the point of the bill, please.
Members interjecting.
Mr KNIGHT: Back to the contribution of the member for Fong Lim. He has talked about everything other than this legislation. He talked about the member for Nelson. It is just desperation on his part because he knows the absolute abysmal performance of the Leader of the Opposition last week and over the weekend and, presumably, through this week. He has stepped up to the plate and is trying to take some leadership, which he should because he is the leader on the other side of the House.
I agree with the member for Nelson: he is more like Tony Windsor, who is a discerning, hard-working, local member. He might look like Rob Oakeshott, but he has a different manner about him. I was delighted to hear the contribution from the member for Fong Lim, because it is really showing what is going on, on the other side of the House.
I thank members for their contribution. It is a problem in our community with this kind of ad hoc nature with caravan parks, which has all been on a handshake, just a nod, or whatever. It is a real problem. I agree with the member for Nelson that this is an evolution. It is putting in a foundation of some understandings and basic rights, and that is what it does. It is something which has been much needed.
The CLP talked about doing it, so they understood it was much needed. With what happened with the Sundowner, it really came to the fore. I congratulate the member for Nelson for his travels. Correct me if I am wrong, I do not think any member in the opposition has travelled as extensively as the member for Nelson or DoJ departmental staff, who have been right down the track. They have met with the operators and the residents and really gauged their views, one-on-one, face-to-face, about how they feel. From my understanding, there is not a great deal of conflict between the operators and the local long-term residents; they get on, but it is all very much ad hoc. There are some good relationships and there are certainly some benefits that can be afforded from both parties having that relationship.
It has reached this point in time where there needs to be some clear understanding so, if you go into these parks, here is what you have and, if you want to operate a park, here is what you have. That is what this legislation does. I agree with the member for Nelson, it will be an evolution - the evolution and the maturity of this particular market. In America, you see these van parks. That is a long way down the track, but that has been an evolution of what has been happening over there. You see a more advanced and more mature evolution down south, where you have van parks which are very much permanent and rights are afforded. There has been a market failure here.
The member for Fong Lim asked why not just open up more caravan parks? That is up to the market. The government can give the tick on the licence - no worries, go ahead; the zoning - no worries. However, it is the market which determines that. The member for Port Darwin talked about getting out of the way of the market. Well, the market has failed in this regard; in the further development of permanent caravan parks. I believe, as a standalone facility, it is probably marginal. You have a lot of money tied up in the land, in the reticulation of power, water and sewerage through these facilities, and I ...
Mr Tollner: Maybe you are the Rob Oakeshott of the Territory.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr KNIGHT: There are a few people you might be too, member for Fong Lim.
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Fong Lim!
Mr KNIGHT: It is a marginal business. The way the economy and the market is at the moment, it has to be a mix. However, we need to ensure those long-term residents, and also the operators, are afforded some rights. This legislation is making it very clear on what you are getting yourself in for and what your rights are. They may be minimal, but you know what they are, and you make some decisions about the way you live and what sort of back-up plans you have if you get asked to leave or you do not get your tenancy renewed.
Madam Speaker, the new regulatory framework will benefit long-term residents and the park operators, as well as people in general. It will provide a level of security and certainty in relation to long-term caravan park agreements which has never existed in the Northern Territory before. It certainly is a step forward. The new provisions are, essentially, important in the current economic climate where we have rising costs across Australia.
We are not alone in the Northern Territory with housing affordability, the take-up in the resources industry. We are some 50 000 homes across Australia short in being constructed each year, with high migration rates, high numbers of workers going to resource projects, and a high birth rates as well. It is certainly a time in the history of Australia where housing affordability is growing because demand is increasing, but supply is reduced. It is one of our key objectives in Territory 2030 to offer affordable and appropriate housing for Territorians.
Long-term caravan park residents and caravan park operators will now, generally, have the same rights and obligations as tenants and landlords.
The 2012 legislation differs from legislation developed in 2010 in that it clearly accepts that caravan park operators can make a clear business decision to focus on short-term accommodation. There have been some comparisons with flats and things like that. If you have some holiday apartments – surely, if you go into a holiday apartment you do not expect it to be there for five, 10, or 15 years, and you do not expect to be given some decent notice to move out. There is a clear decision by the operator of that facility, it being a solid building, that they are offering short-term accommodation. Within this legislation that is a clear decision as well, and people are made aware of it. Government accepts this could be understood to allow operators to get around the legislation. However, it is always possible to avoid being subject to this legislation by simply not providing that particular service.
Clearly, goodwill is a major component of this legislation. It has been a very difficult process to go though because you are getting into some very murky, uncertain range of situations, and a range of caravan parks across the Northern Territory.
In wrapping up, I acknowledge the work which has occurred with departmental officers, and I will name them. I thank Robert Bradshaw, Alastair Shields and Marianne Conaty who did the big road trip, as did the member for Nelson. They travelled down the track to Katherine with three caravan parks, Tennant Creek with two caravan, and to Alice Springs where there are several caravan parks. They also visited the Darwin region and rural area. Dougie Barden came forward, which was quite interesting I am sure. There are also in those in-between areas such as Wycliffe Well and Barrow Creek. They made a huge effort to get out there, and this has been respected by the caravan park industry and, I am sure, the long-term residents, some of whom are in very vulnerable positions. You do not sit in a caravan for 15 years - probably a very inexpensive caravan 15 years ago. Some people are in their 60s and 70s on very basic incomes and are very vulnerable. The operators have some goodwill for these people. This is a good start, a good foundation, and a good awareness for both operators and tenants to move forward.
Madam Speaker, I thank all members for their contribution, and I look forward to the committee stage amendments where we shall make some changes.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
__________________
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: While we are waiting for the Chairman of Committees, honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of the Years 7, 8, and 9 Sanderson Middle School students, accompanied by Mr Bill Simpson, Mr Ben Johns, and Ms Julya Cai. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
__________________
In committee:
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, the committee has before it the Caravan Parks Bill 2012 (Serial 190), together with schedule of amendments No 72 circulated by the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General, Mr Knight.
Is it the wish of the committee that clauses 1 and 2 be taken together?
Mr ELFERINK: I have some more general questions, Madam Chair. I am wondering if now would be an appropriate time to pursue those, or whether you want to wait until such time as we get to the amendments? They are more general questions about the bill, as a whole. I will take your guidance.
Madam CHAIR: Member for Port Darwin, if you wish to ask those general questions now.
Mr ELFERINK: If that suits the minister?
Mr KNIGHT: I do not mind.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay, thank you. My first question in relation to the bill only just popped into my head when you were speaking and describing the process that was gone through in relation to drafting this, and the former bill as well. Can you advise this House how much that whole exercise has cost, from the day the first bill was announced to the stage we find ourselves now, including staff wages, the cost to Parliamentary Counsel, and those sorts of things?
Mr KNIGHT: Obviously, I do not have those figures with me. The cost to Parliamentary Counsel would be the normal cost for us to get other legislation drafted, or the opposition to get legislation drafted. Some legislation is easier and more of a desktop exercise, I assume, and involve stakeholders which are local, meaning Darwin. However, for this exercise, the workload reflects the type of legislation and the stakeholders involved, in that we are dealing with caravan parks in the stretch from Darwin to Alice Springs and, I assume, down to Kulgera as well. Face-to-face meetings were required. Where possible, much of the circulation of this material happened electronically. I do not have that cost. It has been done the correct way, whatever it cost.
Mr ELFERINK: I appreciate that; it was not an attempt to trap you. However, it leads me to make some observations. The observations are simply that if you allow for the drafting of the original legislative instrument it took – what? - five or six hours to get through the House the first time at – what? - $10 000 an hour? Or what is the going rate now - $8000 an hour? - to run this joint? Then, you have all the staff who have been involved, such as legislative draftsmen. One would presume the total cost - if you include travelling allowance for some fairly senior people such as Alastair Shields et al, their wages, that sort of thing - of this exercise will have costs upwards of $250 000, if you include all of those things. Would the minister say that was an unreasonable figure or not?
Dr Burns: No, it is not comparable to what has been wasted on statehood through the CLP’s opposition - $800 000.
Madam CHAIR: Order!
Mr KNIGHT: We had quite a bipartisan approach to the statehood process …
Mr Elferink: That is not the question I am asking. You can ignore the dill at your side.
Mr KNIGHT: … and that cost almost $1m. That was wasted on the floor of this parliament by the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Fong Lim having a leadership battle. It was open civil war over there. I was here witnessing it …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Chair!
Mr KNIGHT: I am still speaking …
Madam CHAIR: Please pause. What is your point of order, member for Port Darwin?
Mr ELFERINK: I thought it would have been self-evident of relevance. I do not particularly need to hear about his opinions on leadership matters he may have of this side of the House. I just wanted to ask him what he thought the cost of this whole policy has been. I was asking whether $250 000 would be a fair price tag. If he is unable to answer the question, he can say so.
Madam CHAIR: Thank you, member for Port Darwin. The Attorney-General is endeavouring to answer that question. Attorney-General, come to the point, please.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, we do not have a figure on that. Obviously, we can talk about the opposition’s Government Business Day today, and about how much time it is going to suck up of the day and what all that costs. If you want to start costing things, we are happy to cost the opposition’s legislation and their matters in the House and what the opposition does. We do not have a figure on that. It is normal, it is reasonable and I thank the officers for the work they did. They did it responsibly. I believe the industry has been very appreciative of the work undertaken.
As the member for Johnston said, it is the price of democracy and of doing it properly. I hope the member for Port Darwin would not like us to do this on the cheap, or do it inappropriately. I am sure that would be levelled as a criticism. I know that it was only this side of the House and the member for Nelson who made the effort to get out to see these people who are not in Darwin, who perhaps will not come to meetings or will not get on the Internet. They need to be spoken to face-to-face, one-on-one a lot of the time. I thank the officers for doing that work. It is reasonable and we thank them.
Mr ELFERINK: That is the longest ‘I do not know’ in history, but that is fine. Thank you for your contribution, minister. Why was the original legislative instrument never gazetted?
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, the earlier bill, basically, was thought to be workable and, as time moved on, it was not. That was a genuine attempt to get it right. The CLP had the opportunity and stated it was intending to do something with this legislation. It never did. So, from our part, it was a genuine opportunity to try to solve a very complex problem, and try to have a balanced position on it. The first cut of it did not look like it was going to work. We did not jam it in there. We genuinely looked at it again and started working with the parties to try to get something that was going to be workable.
As I alluded to in the final parts of my summing up, it is about goodwill from the operators and the tenants to do the right thing. That is, at the end of day, where it is going to come to. So, at this point, this legislation, this amendment, shows we can get to a point where everyone is comfortable and it certainly becomes a very good start. I know the NT Caravan Park Association has been very appreciative about the openness and the willingness from the government to find a landing point they can be comfortable with. I believe this does it. Today, we have support from the NT Caravan Park Association and from the tenants, and it is now very much workable.
Mr ELFERINK: Some observations, Madam Chair, in relation to the comments made by the Attorney-General. This is not about goodwill. If goodwill was operating in any environment then there would be no requirement for any form of legislative interference. Moreover, if goodwill was involved in these processes and the contracts between tenants and owners of caravan parks, there would be no requirement for any form of parliamentary or judicial interference because it would be sorted out.
I heard the member for Nelson, and now I have heard the Attorney-General, refer to goodwill as being one of the guiding principles of this legislative instrument. The reason these legislative instruments are introduced is to create an environment which will deal with problems when goodwill fails. The argument that goodwill should run its course through these legislative instruments is basically to argue that you should have a love-in and that legislative instruments should just capture the love-in mood. That is not what legislative instruments are for, and it is not what courts are for. Courts and legislative instruments seek to resolve issues where the parties can no longer resolve the issues amongst themselves.
I am disappointed to hear that the government thinks that a legislative instrument is a mechanism by which goodwill can be enforced. A legislative instrument is this body imposing its will on the parties involved in one of these disputes. When a dispute has occurred, whilst people may be civil, goodwill implies a spirit of cooperation. A dispute is a result of a failure of the cooperative spirit and, whilst people may still seem to negotiate and will apply rules to themselves, it is not sensible to argue that any legislative instrument is an extension of goodwill and, moreover, can enforce goodwill. Goodwill is as much a human emotion as it is a moral conduct, but you cannot legislatively establish it as a principle of law.
You can certainly look at bona fides and interpret the conduct of a person from a legal point of view, but you cannot enforce it. It is like when you see these comments in the Native Title Act, that there needs to be good faith negotiations, and all that ever occurs in those environments is that the negotiations are either held in good faith or not. If they are held in good faith, then sometimes things are resolved and there is no dispute to bring before a court.
However, you cannot, as the Attorney-General, seriously assert that we are going to create this legislative instrument but, after that, everybody is just going to have a love-in and it is going to be perfect. That is not why we are here, and it is not what this legislative instrument should be about.
This legislative instrument seeks to establish rights from competing proprietoral interests. The problem with a legislative instrument is that - and I have said this before in this House - it is like trying to cast a net into the future and catch one type of fish. I argue - and this is what I argued in the second reading response - that it is inappropriate to take that approach. You may well have a caravan resident - and we will get to this issue shortly when it comes to your definition of a long-term occupant – who prepares themselves, even after 20 years, by registering their caravan and making sure the tyres are pumped up to leave at any moment, then they cannot, in any logical sense, be seen to be a permanent resident.
Nevertheless, a resident of one year who allows the registration to expire on the vehicle, pulls his wheels off the caravan, and starts to put annexes, awnings and build gardens around a caravan, may well create - particularly when that occurs with the permission of the caravan park owner - a proprietoral interest in the land in a period much less than five years.
Surely, the sensible approach to take, minister - and I seek your advice on this - in such circumstances is, rather than an arbitrary declaration by this House - when we do not know and cannot possibly know the nature of the disputes which will arise into the future - and giving definition to what is and is not a long-term residence, the evidence on each particular instance should be taken.
That was a question.
Dr Burns: It was an observation.
Mr ELFERINK: No, it was a question.
Dr Burns: You said it was an observation.
Mr ELFERINK: All right. As I said, I seek advice from the minister as to why he thinks he can apply an arbitrary definition of long-term resident when he cannot know the nature of the disputes which will occur into the future.
Mr KNIGHT: You could say that about any legislation. We are trying to provide some definition to it. We are trying to enact legislation which identifies the likely problems which will come up, and provide some clarity to those. This is what all legislation does; it actually puts some definitions in place. People might not agree with them. In all legislation, I am sure there is particular dispute over one particular case versus another; that is why we have our tribunals and our courts to arbitrate on that. This is no different than other legislation where we put definitions and penalties, and the rules and regulations in place. This is no different to any other legislation.
Mr ELFERINK: That makes my point for me because the government has introduced the commercial tenancies act, the Residential Tenancies Act, now the caravan parks tenancies act - for lack of better words. None of those had legislative environments prior to the those enactments, yet tenancies occurred for hundreds of years - in fact, I suggest for as long as human beings have had contractual arrangements with each other. Those disputes have gone through the courts. The question I ask for a Residential Tenancies Act, a commercial tenancies act, and this act is the same question every time: why is it necessary?
Mr KNIGHT: You are ignoring the fact there are a large number of disputes. We had a market failure and, generally, the community supported the view that the people of the Sundowner Caravan Park where treated unfairly. If you have been there for 10 or 15 years and are given two weeks to put the tyres back on the caravan, get it registered, and all of those things that are required, it is unreasonable.
You are ignoring the fact with this legislation, and other legislation, there has been market failure, and governments from both sides of the spectrum have had to step in. Whether you agree with it or not, you, we get calls from all those different interest groups when the market fails, when they feel they have lost their rights or there is a dispute where there is no clarity within legislation.
No one likes rules, whether you are a little kid or a business owner. However, we also want some fairness and some clarity. That is what legislation does, and that is why we bring legislation into this parliament and why we have the courts as well.
Mr ELFERINK: This is where you and I fundamentally differ. You assert there are no rules that surround the operations of these arrangements between contracting parties in the case of a lease - or an implied lease, if you like. Those rules are well-established and long existing in law and protected by law long before legislative instruments were passed. The question I ask is why - and it is the philosophical discussion we are having - would we step away from a long-established system simply because of a single incident - which is a huge potential drain to the public purse - when those rules are already in existence?
In your second reading reply you referred to the current arrangements – that is, the common law arrangements - are in some way nebulous. They are hardly nebulous, they are well-established. These disputes go back quite some way. On a case-for-case basis, those courts have been able to deal with those issues as a matter of fact. In fact, you have just said to this House if there is a dispute arising out of this legislation where does it go? It goes to a court for decision.
What have we achieved? In the current process – that is, the common law - if there is a dispute it goes to a court for a decision. Your answer is if there is a dispute about this legislation it goes to a court for a decision. What is the advantage in the legislation? A couple of arbitrary rules to determine who is a long-term resident, and who is not? The figure you are going to put on it is five years. However, on a case-by-case basis, that diminishes the capacity and the rights of the players involved. It does not advance it because the effect is it is just an arbitrary number and it takes into no consideration other components.
Yes, I know the courts are often an expensive process. However, the truth is if the residents of Sundowner Caravan Park had got together and some of the more well-off members - as described by the member for Nelson, there were people well off - they could have sought an injunction to prevent the evictions. That injunction could have been in place for as long as necessary to determine the case - a much longer period than the two weeks described. Government would not have had to have been involved, nor would this parliament. Moreover, it sounds as if the only person who came up with a solution was a completely different third party by the name of John Anictomatis.
Nothing in a legislative instrument advances the cause for a case-for-case assessment which the common law enables. This carte blanche process of simply throwing a blanket forward actually represents a limitation on a court; it does not advance the court’s perceptions. If you want to comment on that, you are welcome to, but that is, basically, my concern with this instrument.
Mr KNIGHT: What we have here today is a landing point which satisfies the operators of these parks …
Mr Elferink: No, it does not.
Mr KNIGHT: It satisfies the operators, the owners, and the tenants. It provides some very basic and foundational rights for these parks. It will evolve over time. The work that has gone on with the department and other people into this process has us to this landing point, and it provides guidance for the courts. What we have here is a very contemporary situation, and a balanced and settled position which will, obviously, guide the courts in determining any disputes in the future.
Mr ELFERINK: Guidance from us - the courts love that; they really adore parliamentary guidance. I am always fascinated when the argument gets trotted out: ‘Oh, well, the courts do not know what they are doing, they need guidance from the parliament’. The fact is the courts know full well what they are doing and they have 800 years of property law to rely on to guide them. I suspect there is nothing we can achieve in a pamphlet about that thick, drawn up by a draftsman, which is going to add to their capacity to consider these issues. It is a nonsensical argument and, frankly, I do not accept it.
What I am disappointed about is it is just the first thing we always do, as parliamentarians. We have a legislative instrument for every occasion. Hell! We passed the last legislative instrument with a long fight in this House and, then, it sat in abeyance.
The argument was run by the members on this side of the House that the last instrument was not going to work. ‘No’, we were assured, ‘of course it is going to work’. Then, all of a sudden, ‘Oh hell, it does not work’. Your own admission that it was unworkable - I think that is the word you used - demonstrates it was unworkable. So, it bothers me that, all of a sudden, we have come to a position where we have a workable form which, basically, retreats almost to the point of the common law, but not quite. In the meantime, we have let the common law do it anyhow - completely, uninterrupted, unabated, and unfettered by the opinions of this parliament.
I heard you also say: ‘Well, the industry wants this’ Yes, I am sure the industry does, because it is a much better thing than they currently have. However, I have also spoken to a few in the industry who would just like to let the whole thing go away and the common law to continue to operate, as they have always operated. It would suit the industry well for government to get out of their environment.
That is why I have said in this place, during my second reading debate, that this is nothing more than a retreat position to say: ‘Well, we have done something’. It is because we have tried to interfere in a process of - if you like, for lack of a better expression - land management which is, by its very nature, so transitory that it resists legislative interference. When we have tried to interfere, we have created a nightmare. Now, we are just doing the retreat to a point where we are just saying: ‘Oh, well, we will just tuck in a few rules here and there, guarantee a bit of security for this person and that person, and everything will be sweetness and light’.
All you are really doing, in any practical sense, is slightly extending the eviction period. That is, ultimately, what this legislative instrument can offer. In the process, bureaucracy has to exist around it to police it, including the tribunal. That is the tragedy of this approach. It is a general criticism of what we do as parliamentarians. It is a case of, as I think the member for Fong Lim said: ‘If it ain’t broke, you don’t need to fix it’.
Mr KNIGHT: I am delighted to hear from the shadow Attorney-General with respect to interfering in the courts, and let the courts decide. I hope this continues throughout this election year with respect to sentencing.
Mr Elferink: Ah, good. I am glad you have me there. Thank you, finally.
Mr KNIGHT: I am sure we will be having a mandatory sentencing debate. The belief that that is the way the opposition is going to go seems to fly in the face of what you just said; of letting the courts deal with these problems and leaving it up to them to balance the case in front of them with the penalties they have at their disposal. So, it is getting mixed up there.
It gets back to the goodwill ...
Mr Elferink: No, it does not!
Mr KNIGHT: Let me finish. The landing point we have here is a landing point where there was goodwill. With the previous legislation, we had caravan operators saying: ‘We are going to get around this’, because there was a lack of will. That is what the fundamental theme through the legislation is; that we have balance there. That is what is occurring here. This is a very good landing point. The only people who are critical of this legislation are the opposition members. We have the industry and the community and this side of the House on board with this. It is only you sitting outside the tent with respect to getting some very basic fundamentals and basic rights understood here.
Mr ELFERINK: The bill of rights for caravan park residents – that is what this is about. It, basically, does not protect many rights at all, other than the extension of an eviction period. That is the problem; the courts could do better than that.
I pick up - it took you long enough to get there, by the way - about the argument with sentencing practices. I am happy to have that debate about the sentencing practices of the courts any time. What gives the courts credibility is not the decisions they make, so much as the public support for them. In the past, the courts have, in relation to these property disputes, showered themselves in credibility with reasonable and workable outcomes which, in the instance of many long-term residents who have put down roots in caravan parks, have gone beyond in their decisions what this legislation offers. For that reason, their integrity is protected.
When it comes to the other matter of sentencing, the public opinion of the courts is somewhat different than in relation to the settlement of property disputes. That is why we have a parliament. It is a little like joining dots for you; that occasionally parliaments do interfere. The question the parliament has to ask itself is: should it interfere in this point? Particularly when you do not introduce, essentially, any effective protection through the legislative instrument that you bring before this House - and no such protection is being created.
You can continue to say that industry supports this. What you have done is taken the industry to a point, which they really despised and, because of the best will in the world, all of a sudden the very people you were trying to protect through the haste with which this legislation was introduced originally, were exposed to a response from the industry which everyone suddenly got frightened about: ‘Oh, my goodness, they are going to evict everyone.’
All of a sudden, there is the retreat to this position. Of course the industry is happy because they do not want to be over there either. I can tell you where they would rather be – not interfered with. That is the problem with this type of legislation; it just interferes with the operation of the businesses of the Northern Territory.
Clauses 1 and 2, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 3:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 72.1, which inserts the new main objective in clause 3 of the bill making provision for long-term occupants of caravan parks in the new Part 15A of the bill.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 72.1. This amendment inserts two new definitions for the change date and long-term occupant, and references clauses 177A(4) and 177A in Part 15A of the bill respectively. This technical amendment is necessary in order to make provision for long-term occupants of caravan parks.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Chair, what is the definition of a long-term occupant?
Mr KNIGHT: Five years, member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: Sorry?
Mr KNIGHT: Five years.
Mr ELFERINK: Five years, that is it.
Mr KNIGHT: Yes.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay. Are there any other conditions which apply to a long-term occupant other than the five-year cut-off date, or is that just an arbitrary date?
Mr KNIGHT: Part 15A, member for Port Darwin …
Mr Elferink: Looking at it now.
Mr KNIGHT: Sorry?
Mr Elferink: Just looking at it now.
Mr KNIGHT: Yes, just referring to it. A long-term occupant is:
(1) A person is a long term occupant if the person is a party to an arrangement under which he or she has resided in a caravan park for more than 5 years.
Mr ELFERINK: That is fine. That is what I expected as the answer.
If a person keeps their caravan registered, makes no effort to develop the site for a period of five years, makes sure their tyres are pumped up to 32 psi, and they can leave at any time and is at that site for five years and one day, are they a long-term occupant?
Mr KNIGHT: The definition only includes the five-year term. If they are there for five years, no matter what they do with their tyres, they are a long-term resident.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay. If a person who removes the tyres, lets the registration of the van lapse, grows trees around the caravan. puts an awning on the side of the caravan, and then says to anyone listening that they love being there and they are expecting to spend the rest of their days there, but is there for a period of four years, 364 days, are they a long-term occupant?
Mr KNIGHT: The legislation says no. It is very clear for both that person who has taken the tyres off their caravan that five years is the definition for a long-term occupant.
Mr ELFERINK: You can see my problem though, can you not? You can see the issue I am trying to raise here. It is such an arbitrary figure, no matter what evidence a court may deduce that suggests that a person’s intention is to be there long term, or to suggest that a person’s intention was to only be there for a short term, the arbitrary figure of five years - that is, four years and 365 days - is it. That is the only thing you will now allow a court to turn its attention to when determining long-term occupancy. Is that correct?
Mr KNIGHT: That is the landing point we have arrived at. That has been done in consultation. You have a lot of four-year contracts out there. With major projects, you have a lot of government contracts even, or private sector contracts, which are four years. It is a point they landed on. It could have been four, it could have been six. Well, it was not; that is where they arrived at. That provides the guidance for the occupants and for the operator alike.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, the problem is it also removes any form of discretion on the part of the person making the determination, no matter what evidence is available. That is my concern. I am not going to bang on about it, but I think you take the point that evidence to deduce permanency or otherwise should be a product of the facts, not simply an arbitrary determination. Arbitrary determinations, which found its way into the original bill in this House, are the arbitrary determinations which made the original legislation unworkable and unjust. Now, the potential is for the same unjustness and unworkability to work its way into - well, more the unjustness than the unworkability. The unjustness complained about in the first legislative instrument will now percolate its way into this legislative instrument simply because you are unable – and, frankly, the member for Nelson and government, are unable and unwilling - to abandon this for the system that has worked for such a long time up until this point.
Mr KNIGHT: The use of ‘arbitrary’ and ‘unjust’ with respect to a legislative instrument such as this is interesting because that is where we are going with mandatory sentencing - is it not? - where legislation puts an ...
Mr Elferink: If you want to accuse us of mandatory sentencing, please do.
Mr KNIGHT: ... arbitrary figure in there. You are saying in this case it is unfair, but when you propose your mandatory sentencing or whatever it might be, that is somehow appropriate. You are having it both ways here, member for Port Darwin. I will get a copy of this Hansard, keep it, and you will hear from it quite often in this next six months because you have just given an example where you believe it is inappropriate, unjust, unworkable, and an arbitrary penalty. I look forward to that debate.
Mr ELFERINK: As I explained before, it has to do with the fact people trust the courts when it comes to property disputes. They have less comfort in the area of sentencing regimes, but that as an aside.
The point is, you have a system which works, which is not broadly complained about, and was not used or turned to by any of the residents in the Sundowner Caravan Park. You are prepared, on the basis of that one incident, to turn the whole thing on his head, create new legislative instruments, abandon new legislative instruments, allow the original system to operate unfettered for two years and, then, come in with a capitulation, essentially. The only thing you can touch on is: ‘We have a new definition of long-term resident, everybody suck it up’. What a waste of time!
Mr KNIGHT: I will answer that and throw to the member for Nelson. We support and are providing some protection for the owners and for the tenants. I know the opposition does not want to do that, but that is where we differ. We support some rights and some clarity around this. This cannot go on for very much longer. The former CLP government realised that and was, presumably, stating it was going to move that way but did not. It has been recognised by your side of the House under a previous government, and this side of the House, and the Independent member for Nelson, that there needs to be some clarity around this. It is much welcomed, but that is where we differ. We want to provide some protection, some clarity to the operators and for tenants into the future.
Mr WOOD: I will say something regarding the comment ‘it did not need fixing’. I disagree and that is why these amendments are here. The Sundowner was not the only caravan park closed down. The Overlander, which was the park in front, was closed down and those people never had a chance; it happened so quickly. I spoke to some of those people and they cried out for help and did not get it.
Sundowner people, luckily, were able to get some help from the previous Chief Minister, me, and from people in other caravan parks who allowed them some time to get out of the Sundowner Caravan Park.
Sometimes, you have to go back in history. Sundowner was an old caravan park where people were well-established. However, they had no protection. There has been no protection for people living in caravan parks except, what the member for Port Darwin keeps talking about: common law. Many of those people would not know what common law is and they would not know how to access that law. They would expect the government to have rules and regulations, as they do down south where people who are permanently living in caravan parks are protected.
What is the role of government? Does it step outside its role and put everything in the hands of the courts? I hope it does not because, as members of parliament, we have some responsibility for those who are weakest, and those people who are least able to afford other options when it comes to redressing some injustices. It was unjust that the owner of the land - whether it was the future or the existing owner of the land - told people they had two weeks to leave.
Sometimes, people can make judgments in this House without getting their hands dirty. How many people visited the Sundowner Caravan Park? How many people looked at the sites in the Sundown Caravan Park? How many people spoke to residents of the caravan park? How many people tested whether these people could actually leave in two weeks - physically remove annexes and caravans that had been sitting there up to 15 years - and ask them where would they find another place to live?
Are we part of the old industrial revolution in here at times? We chuck people on the street just because businesses say they should be chucked out because they have no rights. I cannot believe some of the statements I hear; that businesses should be able to do what they like.
There are two sides to the equation. When someone pays money to go to a caravan park, they initiate a contract. The contract is they also expect to get fair treatment. The owner also expects to get fair treatment. If that does not occur, then you need some rules and regulations to ensure it does. If some people have problems with that - too bad!
As I said, this legislation is not perfect. It is better than none, and none is what we would get if the CLP had its way - and none I cannot accept. As time goes on, it is fair to say we have at least set the parameters to which caravan park agreements can operate. There are at least limitations on what the owner of the caravan park can do in relation to kicking someone out. Surely, that is not unfair legislation? To me, it is unjust that someone gets thrown out just because someone decides to sell the land.
No one is saying they cannot sell the land; no one is saying they cannot close their caravan park down -they have every right to do that. However, the other side of the equation, when you pay money to go into a caravan park, is that contract which says you should be treated fairly and justly. This legislation makes that happen.
I feel ashamed that people think the only rights are the rights of business. Of course, businesses have rights and I fully understand that. However, we are not talking about making chocolates, socks, or whatever here, we are talking about dealing with human lives living in a caravan park. It is a lot more serious than some of those other industries we might be talking about.
Madam Chair, the idea that there is nothing wrong, there was nothing that needed fixing, is incorrect. The member for Port Darwin might say this act relies on goodwill - it does. It does because the original legislation proposed was that caravan park owners, or some at least, who did not want it had found a way around it. What were we going to do? Has anyone given a solution to how we would fix that? There probably was not a solution.
I was talking to someone from the real estate industry in the foyer. You can do that with real estate as well. If you want to find a way of escaping some of the clauses in the Residential Tenancy Act, you will find ways around it. Everyone can find loopholes in laws and find ways around it. I would rather have something in place than nothing at all. It sends out a message that the government believes caravan park residents need some protection. It may not give them the protection I had hoped it would give them, but we need to keep talking to caravan park owners. The relationship with government and the Caravan Park Association of the Northern Territory is something that should be valued.
As time goes on, I believe more people will take up these caravan park agreements. That is the way a professional caravan park will operate in the Northern Territory in the future. They will move in the same line as many caravan park operators do down south: they have some relationship with their long-term residents, and that is usually in the form of some legislation.
I do not agree with the member for Port Darwin. This clause which deals with the long-term occupancy, which relates to another clause, section 177A, has to have a date on it. Otherwise, what do you do? Of course, someone can argue you have four years and 364 days and, therefore, you are not counted. You hope, of course, the caravan park operators have a feeling for the people living in their caravan park. You cannot legislate totally, but you hope that caravan park operators will also accept that there will be times when the legislation is so prescriptive that they could argue the case: ‘Well, I can kick you out’. However, I hope caravan park owners would have more humanity than that - and I believe they would - and would give those people sufficient time to remove themselves from the caravan park.
Madam Chair, I support these amendments.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 to 9, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Debate suspended.
CARAVAN PARKS BILL
(Serial 190)
(Serial 190)
Continued from earlier this day.
In committee:
Members interjecting.
Madam CHAIR: Order! Member for Greatorex! Member for Arafura!
Members interjecting.
Madam CHAIR: Order! Member for Greatorex! Member for Arafura! Member for Greatorex, you are on a warning!
Honourable members, we resume the Committee of the Whole.
Clause 10:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 72.3. This amendment replaces the application for Parts 2 to 16 of the bill in respect to clauses 10(2) to (6) with the application of Parts 2 to 15 of the bill in respect of clauses 10(2) to (6). This technical amendment is necessary in order to make provision for long-term occupants of caravan parks.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 72.4. This amendment replaces the application for Parts 2 to 16 of the bill in respect of clause 11(2) with the application of Parts 2 to 15 of the bill in respect of clause 11(2). This technical amendment is necessary in order to make provision for the long-term occupants of caravan parks.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 12 to 26, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 27:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 72.5. This amendment is required to correct a minor reference error.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 72.6. This amendment is required to allow for variations to standard form agreements.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 72.7. This amendment replaces the current clause 27(4), and requires that the commissioner or the court may have regard to the way in which a term, specified under this legislation, is a term of the caravan park agreement provided for by a standard form for caravan park agreement.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 28 to 103, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 104:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 72.8. This amendment to clause 104(3)(b) corrects the notice period applicable in the case of termination of an employment-related tenancy. As currently drafted, clause 104(3)(b) prescribes a notice period of one day, and it is proposed to replace this with a notice period of 14 days.
Mr ELFERINK: Just quickly, why?
Mr KNIGHT: This reflects the Residential Tenancies Act and it was a reference error.
Mr ELFERINK: I am sorry; can you explain a ‘reference error’?
Mr KNIGHT: When it was originally drafted, there was a one-day notice period. What we are doing here is referencing off the current entitlement within the Residential Tenancies Act, section 91, which gives 14 days, so it was basically a referencing error.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay, so why did you choose one day in the first instance?
Mr KNIGHT: I am advised this was an error with drafting and it has been corrected with these amendments.
Mr ELFERINK: All right, I appreciate that, but that just makes my point that this stuff is hurried - was hurried the first time round, and continues to be hurried now. The fact that you are introducing whole wads of amendments to this legislative instrument belies the fact that this legislative instrument is hurried. I just place on the record my concern that your haste will, again, find us at some point in the near future back in this House re-amending the amended act that we are amending today.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 104, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 105 to 165, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 166:
Mr KNIGHT: I move amendment 72.9. This amendment seeks to replace the terminology ‘authorised officer’ with ‘authorised person’ in clause 166(3) which sets out the powers and requirements when the commissioner wants to inspect properties. This is a minor technical amendment in line with the contemporary drafting practice.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr KNIGHT: I move amendment 72.10. This is one more amendment to clause 166. This amendment relates to amendment 72.9 and replaces a definition ‘authorised officer, means the officer’ with ‘authorised person, means the person’. Again, this is picking up on the previous amendment by changing the definition wording.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 166, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 167 to 177, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
New Part 15A and new clauses 177A, 177B, and 177C:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 72.11. This amendment inserts after clause 177 a new Part 15A into the bill and provides for the application of the legislation to long-term residents. By way of summary, proposed clauses 177A, 177B and 177C provide the determination provisions of the bill will apply to persons who have been in continuous occupation or paid rent for at least five years. The main protection would be persons with a periodic occupancy - for example, those where there is no fixed end date - are entitled, after five years of occupancy, to a three-month notice for the need to vacate the site.
Also, the five-year period includes periods before the commencement of the legislation. This means that persons who have currently been in a park for a period of five years will immediately gain the protection of the termination provisions of the bill.
Last, the period in which notice of determination for a long-term fixed occupancy is extended from 21 to 42 days. This does not extend the term of the occupancy, rather it provides for a much longer period of notice being required.
Mr ELFERINK: Do these amended sections operate where an operator, in accordance with the rest of the legislation, places a sign out the front that says ‘tourist accommodation’?
Mr KNIGHT: This is the new part which, basically, provides for the longer-term tenancies.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes. I will ask the question again. Which is the superior part of the legislative instrument, this part, or the part where somebody sticks a sign out the front that says ‘tourist accommodation’? Does it have the effect of nullifying this section, either directly, or by way of excuse should a person be charged?
Mr KNIGHT: It is not in this part of the legislation – Part 15A.
Mr ELFERINK: Sorry, could you say that again? I did not hear you.
Mr KNIGHT: You are asking about the signage - whether the caravan park is a holiday short-term accommodation or a long stay. That is not the case, it is not in this Part 15A.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, it is not in this Part 15A. How do the two parts operate, or do they not operate with each other? Can you explain to me how they may work?
Without being able to lay my hands on the section, there is, essentially, a defence component created in this legislative instrument which says if you whack a sign saying ‘tourist park’ out the front, then it nullifies the operation of this act. What I am asking is: is this nullified - that is, the definition of long-term occupant - by the operation of the exercise of that other part of the act?
Mr KNIGHT: Thank you, member for Port Darwin, interesting observation. The advice I have is the special entitlements for the persons who have been there for five years, and the retrospective nature of it, overrides that provision which you are alluding to about the short stay and long stay.
Mr ELFERINK: Can you just point out the provision to me so I can jog my own memory in relation to this? Just what section number are we talking about?
Mr KNIGHT: For the short stay and long stay?
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, for the one that says, basically, the sign has the effect of nullifying the operation of this act - or words to that effect. I know it is in there; I remember reading it.
Mr KNIGHT: Is it Part 1, Division 3, section 10(3), Application of Act?
Mr ELFERINK: Sorry, what is it? What is your section number? It is easier.
Mr KNIGHT: Section 10(3), Application of Act:
- If a caravan park is advertised as being for ‘holiday accommodation’ or ‘tourist accommodation’, Parts 2 to 16 do not apply to an agreement for an occupancy in the caravan park even if the occupancy is for the prescribed period …
Mr ELFERINK: All right, Parts 2 to 16 do not apply. Does Part 15A fall within the range of Parts 2 to 16?
Mr KNIGHT: Say that again, sorry.
Mr ELFERINK: You are introducing Part 15A. What did you say? Parts 2 to 16 do not apply. Is that correct?
Mr KNIGHT: Do not apply to an agreement.
Mr ELFERINK: What section are you quoting from, just quickly?
Mr KNIGHT: Section 10(3).
Mr ELFERINK: Section 10(3) - that is what I was looking for. Okay, that is what I thought. I will ask the question again now we have settled on section 10(3) ...
Mr KNIGHT: Sorry, I will just correct that. What I just quoted from was the original act and, yes, amendment 72.3 changes it from Parts 2 to 16 to Parts 2 to 15 to take into account that.
Mr ELFERINK: Ah right, so ...
Mr KNIGHT: Good pick up anyway.
Mr ELFERINK: This arrived on the Leader of the Opposition’s desk yesterday, so I am winging it as bit, as you can appreciate. Right. Oh yes, look at that. Thank you very much.
New Part 15A and new clauses 177A, 177B, and 177C agreed to.
Clauses 178 to 180, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 181:
Mr KNIGHT: Madam Chair, I move amendment 72.12. This amendment includes an additional regulatory-making power in respect of how Parts 10, 14, 15 and 16 of the bill apply to long-term occupants.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 181, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole, and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
Mr KNIGHT (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
TABLED PAPER
Remuneration Tribunal Determination -
Interstate Study Travel Report –Member for Macdonnell
Remuneration Tribunal Determination -
Interstate Study Travel Report –Member for Macdonnell
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table the interstate study travel report pursuant to paragraph 3.14 of the Remuneration Tribunal No 1 of 2011 for the member for Macdonnell.
MOTION
Note paper - Environment and Sustainable Development Committee – Northern Territory Capacity to Progress Environmentally Sustainable Agricultural Production
Note paper - Environment and Sustainable Development Committee – Northern Territory Capacity to Progress Environmentally Sustainable Agricultural Production
Continued from 29 March 2011.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, as Chair of the Sessional Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development Committee, I was pleased to table the report on the committee’s inquiry into the Northern Territory’s capacity to progress agricultural production in an environmentally sustainable manner.
The committee concluded that the Northern Territory has a substantial capacity to progress the development of environmentally sustainable agriculture. The committee acknowledged the Territory’s natural resources are finite and there are natural limitations to the extent of that development. However, the committee found there is a great deal of potential to continue to progress environmentally sustainable agriculture. The committee found that some of that potential is being realised, yet there is emerging and untapped potential which needs more support through greater investment in research, road and transport infrastructure, and release from legislative constraints in order to develop. The committee found there is more that the Northern Territory can do, and the recommendations made by the committee in this report are aimed at further strengthening the Northern Territory’s capacity.
The inquiry’s terms of reference asked the committee to examine a broad range of aspects related to the Territory’s capacity to progress environmentally sustainable development. In line with the terms of reference, the committee examined the relevant environmental issues, opportunities and constraints, best practice agricultural production, best ways to support the development of environmentally sustainable agriculture in the Northern Territory, relevant scientific research that relates to the Territory’s capacity to progress environmentally sustainable agriculture, and current and possible future contributions of agricultural-based products to the Northern Territory economy, including employment and enterprise development for Indigenous people in remote and regional areas.
Given the broad scope of the inquiry’s terms of reference, the committee agreed to focus on the mechanisms for promoting sustainable agriculture into the future, and so it did not examine the extent to which current or previous agricultural practices are sustainable. The committee’s considerations were underpinned by the principles of ecologically sustainable development which are about:
1. decision-making that integrates long-term and short-term economic environmental, social and equitable considerations;
The committee agreed to focus on the role and responsibilities of government, as well as the tools and mechanisms available to government to build industry capacity and progress environmentally-sustainable agriculture in the Territory.
The committee received four written submissions in response to its call for submissions from:
1. the Department of Regional Development, Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources;
The committee held six public hearings and heard from representatives from a range of agriculture and related organisations in the Territory, including the Northern Territory Horticultural Association; the Northern Territory Agricultural Association; Centrefarm Aboriginal Horticultural Ltd; the Environmental Protection Authority NT; the Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association; and the relevant areas within Northern Territory government agencies, including the Arid Zone Research Institute.
The committee learnt a great deal from written submissions and public hearings about agriculture in the Northern Territory and the management of our natural resources in relation to agriculture. The committee was pleased to hear about the activities which demonstrate the capacity of the Northern Territory to progress environmentally-sustainable agriculture, the positive initiatives where potential is being realised, and the projects supported by industry and government working together towards strengthening the Territory’s capacity to progress environmentally sustainable agriculture.
It was fitting I tabled the report in Alice Springs because the committee heard much about the potential being realised, and still to be achieved, in environmentally sustainable agriculture in Central Australia, despite the environmental challenges of the region. The committee found that it is within these limitations that opportunities must be found to develop sustainable agriculture in the Northern Territory. With improved understanding of the environment and production techniques there is room for development within these limits.
Agriculture already makes a significant contribution to the Northern Territory by providing food, jobs and export income. The industry contributes around 2% of the state product, employs 2% to 3% of the Territory’s workforce, as well as the flow-on contributions through spending and participation in the wider community. Agriculture in the Territory is a developing industry. In 2000, agriculture produced $250m. In 2009-10, the combined production of agriculture, forestry, and fisheries was approximately $548m. In the past five years, horticulture alone has grown by 13.6% to $99.3m.
Despite the growth, there remains significant potential to increase the Territory’s agriculture production through both improved use of the land already under production and increasing the area of land under production. However, increasing the number of cattle on existing grazing land, putting more land into production, or increasing the number and variety of suitable plants grown is not sustainable without improved production techniques and better management and use of existing natural resources.
The committee found the potential for further development of agriculture in the Northern Territory is dependent on:
(1) sustainability and capacity of natural resources;
(2) industry willingness and capacity;
(3) market and economic drivers;
(4) government support for the industry and the market drivers; and
(5) sound environmental management, including the management of invasive species and their impact on agriculture.
Relatively very little of the Northern Territory is under production or is likely to be in the future. In fact, less than 1% of the Northern Territory land mass is cleared. The environmental resources of the Northern Territory are largely intact. However, a key message from industry representatives was that a major constraint to progressing environmentally sustainable agriculture in the Territory is the absence of a complete picture of the extent of suitable land and water resources which can be developed sustainably for future agricultural production.
The committee heard work to fill this crucial knowledge gap is being conducted. The committee believes it is important this work is finalised as soon as possible to allow for planning and development of the industry, along with best practice management of these important environmental resources.
Recommendation 4, therefore, asks that the government provide the necessary resources to NRETAS to complete capability assessments and an audit and mapping of land and water suitable for long-term sustainable food production as soon as possible. In conjunction with this information must be a thorough understanding of the environment, including climate, soil, water and their relationship and interactions at the ecosystem level. We also need knowledge of best-practice techniques for the sustainable production appropriate for the environmental conditions of the Territory. Naturally, water and soil management were particular issues of concern.
The committee found there is a great deal of work being done by industry and government to improve management of environmental resources relied upon by agriculture. The production of the NT Sustainable Land Use Guidelines is one good example. These guidelines have been written to provide agriculturalists and land managers with ways to self-assess their current practices against agriculture and environmental best practice. The guidelines are also designed to direct users in developing environment management plans for their enterprises, and towards achieving accreditation for their produce as environmentally sustainable.
There are numerous examples of government work being done to improve water management. One example is the development of water allocation plans to manage the sharing of water for human and environmental needs. Water allocation plans have been completed for the Ti Tree region and Tindal limestone aquifers in Katherine, and plans are being developed for Western Davenport around the Ali Curung region, Mataranka, the Oolloo aquifer in the Daly region, and the Darwin rural area in Howard Springs and Berry Springs.
Other work includes: the management of saltwater intrusion into the Mary River system; the development of water strategies for the sustainability of water resources in Central Australia and on the Tiwi Islands; NRETAS has been working with an agricultural producer in Katherine to harvest and store rainwater in an aquifer as the river levels begin to fall and flood peaks move down the system, while minimising adverse impacts on environmental flows; and the CSIRO and Power and Water have been recharging treated water into the Alice Springs aquifer which is showing an unexpected result in the slower than predicted recharge rate, giving the water more time to be cleansed before it reaches the aquifer. Once the level of recharge has been determined as sufficient, the department of Resources and AZRI will test the use of the water through agricultural projects.
The committee received a great deal of information about the limitations of water resources for intense development and the importance of managing water resources wisely. That the Northern Territory has in place a policy that 80% of available water must be used for the maintenance of water dependent ecosystems recognises the importance of surface water management for environmental health.
The mistakes of southern states in the management of river systems must not be made here. The committee learnt that the Living Rivers Strategy intends to provide a plan for the future management of rivers in the Northern Territory which balances environmental sustainability with economic development. Once complete, the strategy will form part of an overarching Northern Territory government framework for the development of sustainable agriculture in the Northern Territory. Recommendation 3, therefore, asks the Northern Territory government to complete and release its Living River Strategy as soon as possible.
There is also work going into improving soil management; for example, the Arid Zone Research Institute’s work with seven Indigenous pastoral properties in Central Australia in collaboration with the Central Land Council and the Indigenous Land Corporation to restore, replace, and install new infrastructure such as fencelines, dams, and watering areas to help control soil erosion and provide assistance to properties which are just establishing. The Arid Zone Research Institute is also conducting trials on soil carbon and nutrient dynamics.
A solid research base provides necessary evidence to encourage and support the uptake of more sustainable practices. The result and evidence of any research must be communicated effectively to producers and other environmental managers. Strong links between researchers and producers will ensure the researcher’s target and producers are well informed to make management choices which progress sustainable agriculture.
The committee was informed about a proposal being developed by the Northern Territory Horticultural Association, with the relevant Northern Territory government departments, to development the Northern Territory research capacity by bringing together existing research farms, stations, and centres to focus on the research and development of sustainable farming systems in wet/dry tropics under the Cooperative Research Centre, or CRC, or similar collaboration.
The CRC would cover north Australia and include expertise from Western Australia, Queensland, and the Northern Territory, to promote an integrated and collaborative approach to sustainability, and work in direct partnership with governments and their agencies in the implementation of their framework for sustainable development. The CRC would also be able to use its knowledge of wet/dry tropics to assist developing countries with food production and environmental management.
The establishment of the CRC is in keeping with the Territory 2030 target to build or further develop a number of major centres of research and teaching. Recommendation 5, therefore, asks the government to complete the proposal guidelines to progress the establishment of a north Australian cooperative research centre for an environmentally sustainable development as soon as possible.
Recommendation 6 extends Recommendation 5 by asking that the government develop a five- to 10-year research strategy which identifies research and development priorities to strengthen the Territory’s capacity to progress environmentally sustainable agriculture in the Territory. The strategy must align with national research and development priorities for rural research and development, and connect directly to the work of the proposed north Australian cooperative research centre for environmentally sustainable development of the region.
Another important message the committee received was the need for an improved legislative framework. Although the committee found that the Northern Territory has the full complement of necessary legislation to support the progress of environmentally sustainable agriculture, industry comments were received about impediments arising in existing legislation to realising that potential and its capacity to progress sustainable agriculture in the Northern Territory. The Pastoral Land Act restrictions on diversification into off-farm or off-property enterprises were identified as hindering development, efficiency, and good risk management.
Opportunities could be achieved from the reallocation of the boundaries and allowances made for leaseholders to restructure boundaries to amalgamate or cooperate better with neighbouring properties for more efficient use of resources. The Northern Territory Horticultural Association gave the example of the cattle station in Alice Springs where a piece of land was given an exemption from the act to grow table grapes, and the property has successfully and profitably grown table grapes for many years.
The committee was told that under the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act the principles of management of feral animal conflict with the idea of sustainable use. Commercial use has to contribute to define management goals and be one of the tools to help with mitigation. Feral camels proposed as stock animals for commercial gain must be managed to reduce their adverse impact on the environment, human settlement, and agriculture. If they become a stock animal then they must be herded, fenced, and managed in a similar way to cattle.
The committee acknowledges that balancing competing principles is an ongoing challenge, and compromises must be made between competing and changing needs, preventing environmental damage and allowing for growth and development. The committee believes the review of relevant laws needs to be completed as soon as possible to enable suitable opportunities for environmentally sustainable agriculture to be realised. Recommendation 12, therefore, asks the government to complete and implement its review of the Pastoral Land Act as soon as possible, with a view to removing any inappropriate restrictions on diversifying the use of pastoral land.
Another important message the committee received was the requirement for the provision of better infrastructure, particularly roads. Industry representatives identified the adequacy and quality of roads, transport, and related infrastructure as a key limiting factor to progressing development of agriculture in the Northern Territory. The degradation of existing roads in recent years, particularly the unsealed roads for multiple users including mining, the community, and the increase of activity from the NT National Emergency Response was identified, as well as the need to upgrade roads and transport infrastructure to ensure Wet Season access to key markets such as Indonesia. Recommendation 13, therefore, asks the government to release and implement its plan for rural roads and highways as a matter of priority to help the agriculture industry reach existing markets more efficiently and to grow.
Another recurring message during the inquiry was the need for more encouragement through investment to enable opportunities to be realised. The committee was told the influence of political and corporate time frames and long-term investment in the industry do not match agricultural cycles for return, which need around a 10-year investment to take advantage of complete seasonal cycles. Government needs to support the industry with investment in infrastructure such as roads, transport, and energy. In particular, infrastructure is needed to access its markets, such as the live export market such of Southeast Asia. Recommendation 16, therefore, asks the government to continue to encourage investment in the Northern Territory’s agricultural industry by, among other things, maintaining a commitment to the maintenance and development of necessary transport infrastructure.
The committee was asked to consider whether agriculture and agriculture-based products could provide employment and enterprise development opportunities for Indigenous people in remote and regional communities. Despite there being capable soils and resources on Indigenous land that can be used for food production for those communities, a number of constraints and challenges were identified as possibly hindering development of agricultural enterprises on Aboriginal land. A range of questions was raised around the form of agricultural production possible on Aboriginal land, the education, infrastructure and investment needed to realise those possibilities, and whether agricultural production was the most appropriate use of the land. As well, there are political and legislative issues that pose a number of challenges for the development of those enterprises for Aboriginal people.
These include the legislative requirement for Aboriginal people to act collectively to develop businesses on Indigenous-held land may be discouraging individuals from developing business ideas, and legislative restrictions that require complex resource management plans for wild harvests of plant products. Government and industry recognise that further development of agricultural enterprises such as pastoralism on land held under the Aboriginal Land Trust, needs to take place under the Native Title Act 1993 and Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, and must be within the wishes of traditional owners.
Centrefarm demonstrates the substantial capacity of the Northern Territory to progress environmentally sustainable agriculture for the Territory and for Indigenous people. The Desert Springs melon farm at Ali Curung is the first commercial horticultural enterprise on Aboriginal land through Centrefarm. The first harvest from 30 ha was in May 2008. At November 2009, Centrefarm estimated that the watermelons were producing approximately $70 000 per hectare. Centrefarm also uses horticultural and environmental best practice, and has established monitoring systems such as a method to check that leachate via irrigation water is not polluting aquifers.
Thirty-three locations in Central Australia have been identified for horticultural development. Centrefarm plans to develop at least two new farms a year, and increase this amount in due course, as other traditional owners have expressed interest in developing commercial farms on their land. Many traditional owners and communities in Central Australia have asked Centrefarm to set up community farms next to their communities to produce fresh food and vegetables for their community store, as well as provide employment for young people. Centrefarm works closely with traditional owners and the Central Land Council to ensure the protection of significant and other cultural sites.
The success so far of Centrefarm has generated interest from traditional owners in the Top End to develop Centrefarm modelled horticultural enterprises on their land. Recommendation 1, therefore, asks the government to continue to provide assistance to Centrefarm and other agribusinesses that develop horticultural enterprises.
The committee heard about the success thus far of the Indigenous Pastoral Program in building capacity of people and its focused properties. Under the program, the federal government, the Northern Territory government, Northern Land Council and Central Land Council work together to increase cattle production on Indigenous pastoral leases and land held by Aboriginal land trusts, and Indigenous participation in the Northern Territory pastoral industry. The IPP commenced in commenced in 2002-03, was renewed in 2006, and was due to expire on 30 June 2011. The committee recommended that the government support the further development and renewal of the Indigenous Pastoral Program Northern Territory in 2011 to enable the program to fulfil its long-term objectives.
Increasing public awareness of, and demand for, greater accountability and responsibility by industry in the use of natural resources and humane treatment of animals will continue to affect industry practice in the future. The growing market for products derived from production systems based on ethical and environmental sustainable principles indicates the willingness of consumers to pay for goods and services founded on sustainability principles.
One strategy for market development is sustainability certification. Certification reinforces industry standards and is also a marketing brand. The development of certification and branding in the Territory has potential for creating access to a new market for agricultural industry. One option offered to the committee is the creation of a Northern Territory brand which certifies the producer has met certain standards for environmentally sustainable agriculture. The Northern Territory Horticultural Association suggests the brand name Sustain NT.
Recommendation 14 asks that the government explore options for work with the agricultural industry to develop the concept of a Territory-wide system of certification and branding that is based on environmentally sustainable principles, standards, and industry codes for agricultural production. Recommendation 15 adds to Recommendation 14 by asking that the government, where possible, assist producers aiming to achieve certification from existing national and international industry bodies for environmentally sustainable agricultural production.
The committee found that the government is active in supporting the growth of environmentally sustainable agriculture through policy, regulation, research, education, and information dissemination including extension services and coordination of activities between its own departments, as well as with industry in the community. The committee was pleased to find that since it concluded its evidence gathering, government has produced a number of policy statements which help to progress the development of sustainable agriculture.
The Territory 2030 strategic plan has targets for: identifying suitable land and water for further long-term and sustainable food production; ensuring no deterioration in the health of biodiversity; and increasing government and business expenditure on research. Government has also produced a primary industry extension strategy, an Agribusiness investment booklet, and information on the economic outlook and statistics on primary industry. The committee considers these to be a useful start, but sustained effort is required to implement the identified strategies.
The committee found that communication between government and agricultural sectors with other interest groups and users of natural resources needs to be improved. Greater collaboration between all stakeholders in planning for regional development will prevent the possibility of one industry expanding but cutting off another industry’s opportunities in the process.
Recommendation 8 requests the government to ensure an effective mechanism to foster communication and collaboration between government, agricultural industry groups, and other natural resource management groups in the wider community on the development of environmental sustainable agriculture in the Northern Territory, either through the strategy for guiding public sector extensions in primary industry in the Northern Territory in 2010 to 2015, or by other means.
The Northern Territory agriculture industry also has issues in common with the rest of north Australia. The North Australia Land and Water Taskforce, which looked at the sustainable development of northern Australia, acknowledged the limits to available water and suitable soils for the sustainable development of the region. The North Australia Land and Water Taskforce believes further development of the region has to be smart, and built on the regions unique attributes. The federal government ..
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move that the member be granted an extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I thank the member for Nhulunbuy. I do not think I need 10 minutes, but I thank her for that time.
The federal government has committed to establishing a north Australian sustainable future program as a direct response to a North Australia Land and Water Taskforce recommendation that the Commonwealth government establish a representative body of Western Australia, Queensland, and the Northern Territory to build institutional capacity, improve compliance with the national water initiative, and advocate for the needs and interest of northern Australia.
The North Australia Land and Water Taskforce also recommended that a ministerial council, chaired by the Prime Minister, be established to develop an integrated vision for the sustainable development of northern Australia and provide leadership on key priorities. Recommendation 9 asked that the government actively participate in the establishment and operation of regional bodies such as north Australian regional body or a ministerial council to build institutional capacity and develop an integrated vision for sustainable development of the region. Further to Recommendation 9, Recommendation 10 asks that the Northern Territory government implement the recommendations of the North Australia Land and Water Taskforce where they are applicable to the Northern Territory.
In conclusion, there are many challenges to progressing agricultural production in an environmentally sustainable manner in the Northern Territory. Meeting these challenges requires: a better understanding of the environment; the identification and development of improved production practices; effective communication, education, and training between producers, researchers, government, communities and industry; an evidence-based efficient and effective regulatory framework; adequate transport infrastructure; and market development and investment.
That the agricultural industry embraces more sustainable practices and is open to exploring new ways to do things better is a positive mark of the Territory’s capacity to progress environmentally sustainable development. The foundational work undertaken by government is on the right path to supporting this progress, but there is still work to be done to unlock the Territory’s potential for environmentally sustainable agriculture. We hope the committee’s recommendations will help to advance this progress towards more environmentally sustainable agriculture.
Madam Speaker, I thank all the individuals and organisations which gave their time and advice to the committee to help it reach its conclusions and recommendations. The information and advice received was invaluable and will, hopefully, help to shape any future response from government to strengthen the capacity of the Northern Territory to progress environmentally sustainable agriculture.
I thank the Parliamentary Library staff for their research assistance, the committee office staff for their support, the former chair of the Environment committee, the member for Nhulunbuy, Ms Lynne Walker MLA, who commenced the inquiry, and all the members of the Environment committee for their bipartisan approach to examining this important matter.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, as a member of the committee, I thank the other members of the committee who participated. I thought it was quite a constructive and mature committee: the members for Brennan and Sanderson as the fellow committee members, as well as the member for Nelson and the member for Nhulunbuy, and our chair, the member for Arafura. The member for Arafura caught the member for Brennan on the hop there, so I am happy to speak second. I know the member for Nelson is receiving a briefing.
The charge we had, as a committee, was, I believe, quite an important one; about the Territory’s capacity to progress agriculture production in an environmentally sustainable manner. It is a very critical industry to the Territory. It is one that has grown over the last 10 years - it has just been a bit over 10 years. We have seen it go, essentially, from $250m to $548m, which is quite an impressive growth. There is still more growth in that food sector but, obviously, how we do it and how we manage it is really critical. We have to do it in a sustainable manner to ensure we do not over-tap our resources and make the mistakes made by other parts of the world and, potentially, have been made down south.
We are in a very fortunate position to have an industry which, in many ways, is mature in its attitude. It is not necessarily mature yet in how much it is producing, but certainly going that way - definitely a very mature, professional industry which wants to participate and increase our food production in a sustainable manner. That was evident from the committee’s hearings.
I thank the witnesses who came before the committee: the Water Resources Division from the department; the NT Agricultural Association; the Department of Natural Resources, Environment, The Arts and Sport; the NT Horticultural Association; the Environmental Protection Authority; the NT Cattlemen’s Association; Centrefarm; the Arid Zone Research Institute; and the Department of Regional Development, Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources. All were very capable, competent people who provided different angles on a common discussion point. I thought it was a very constructive and bipartisan committee, and I really enjoyed working with the other members of the committee.
As I said, agriculture already makes a significant contribution to the Northern Territory, and that has been growing over the last 10 years. There is a broader context in some respects - a global context - to the debate we were looking at around sustainability going into food security, something the CSIRO talks about. They put it in the global context of a population going from 6.8 billion to 9 billion by 2050, which is a significant growth in population. We always have to be constantly looking at how we manage, and where we sell our food, and how we are doing it in a sustainable manner.
Australia is, obviously, more than capable of producing enough food for itself. We produce food for ourselves and 50 million people overseas. So, we are very well placed in the sense that we are very efficient and effective managers of our food bowls, of our land. We do not have a problem feeding our population, but we have to look at what our skills set is, in a sense. In many ways, we are world leaders in efficiency of food production and how we manage our country. So, looking at how we manage what we do in the Territory, and our industry manages what it does, and how we grow going into the future, was an important charge of the committee. I believe the report we are talking to has been available for people to look at for a while. The member for Arafura tabled it previously and we are now debating it in parliament. It is a very comprehensive, solid report about the challenges we are facing and some of the ways to go about getting there. I commend her and the committee secretariat.
Central to the management of the environment, central to what we do, is agriculture producers themselves, the people on the land. They are at the heart of it. I had the good fortune of hearing - I am not sure how many people here caught it – the Governor-General give her Australia Day message which was about the Year of the Farmer. I thought she, in some respects, captured that sentiment in the committee’s report about agriculture being central to the management of the environment. As she put it, farmers are the sentinels of our environment. They are the first to see changes in soil, water quality, bird life and natural vegetation. They are also the first fixers.
Often environmental degradation is stopped in its tracks by farmers. Therefore, we need to put at the heart of this the people working on the land - and we did that as a committee. Listening to the expert evidence that came forward, central to everything we thought about and considered was the farmers. Those were very good words. The Governor-General has a very good turn of phrase, and referring to the farmers as the sentinels of our environment and the first fixers, is a really good way of looking at that.
That goes beyond farmers; that goes to anyone who is working on the land. There are, obviously, more than farmers - people who care about land are often the first people to notice changes to the land. That is something we held, at the heart of our committee going forward, because these people have an investment, a stake, and that really affects how you view and monitor things.
There were quite a number of technical definitions, it would be fair to say, around sustainability - many dot points, and comprehensive, detailed ways of cutting it up from the Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, the Australian National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development, the NT’s own EPA has two separate things on it, and to use the department’s acronym, the DRDPIFR, had a very detailed way of breaking it up as well. That is all in the report if you want those technical definitions. They are all in the report, very complicated, very complex - good on them. I like the NT Horticultural Association’s summary. They said:
… farming systems that are capable of maintaining their productivity and usefulness to society indefinitely.
I thought that was a really good way of summing up all that: take all those dot points and make it one simple sentence. Let us do what we are doing, let us do it better, and let us do it in a way that we can always do it. That sums up what everyone wants to do when it comes to looking after how we grow and breed food in the Territory, or anywhere. I thought that was very well phrased and I commend the NT Horticultural Association again.
The people we heard from clearly understood the importance of environmental sustainability for the protection of natural resources and the long-term viability of their own industries. That goes back to the point that they had a stake. I know this is separate from what we were looking at here in a sense. I was talking to a couple of commercial fishermen the other day at Stuart Park while doorknocking, and their strong message of sustainability was they want to be fishing, and then pass it on to their own children to keep fishing, and they do not want to ever see fishing stopped - go away. People who have an investment, have a care and an interest, and want to see that keep going forward.
Essentially, where we are at? In some respects, a big issue was research and data collection. Reading from the report, that needs to continue to support decisions which best meet the needs of the environmental and sustainable agriculture industry. That is almost one of those most baseline issues, where you have to have good research and data, because with good research and data, you make good decisions. This is central to how you decide what is and is not sustainable. That was a point we kept coming back to, in a sense, making sure we get the research and data right, and we build up that baseline information over a long period so we can be sustainable in the Territory.
We have enough of that data already to bust a myth - and the industry itself busted this myth - that we are going to be a northern food bowl. We can definitely grow and breed more than we currently do - there is no doubt that we can do more. However, there is this image in the south that we are this untapped food bowl. Industry was quick to say that was a fallacy. It believes we can definitely do more sustainably, but the image people down south have of what we are capable of doing is not quite correct. I will quote from a couple of the industry associations on that.
The Northern Territory Agricultural Association said:
- … we are not going to be the food bowl of Asia or Australia. But what I am saying is that we have resources to develop here and to develop sustainably and contribute ... we are all consumers ... I think it is unfair on the rest of Australia for us to sit up here and criticise and say: ‘We want to drink wine, we want to eat pasta, we want to eat bread, we want to eat beef’, and get it all from southern Australia.
We have got resources, we have got soil - in limited abundance, if I can put it that way, in limited qualities - and they should be developed sustainably and sensibly.
They were saying we absolutely need to do more, and we need to get better at what we do and what we have, and we need to do more on what we are not using at the moment. However, there is a myth in some sections of the industry, saying: ‘Do not put too much pressure on us. We can do a lot, but not maybe as much as you think we can’.
The Northern Territory Horticultural Association said something very similar:
- I felt the need to acknowledge the concept of the ‘northern food bowl’ because it is appearing increasingly in the media. This is the concept that we are going to expand our agriculture industry, essentially to feed the nation. The researchers are warning us that this is not a reasonable expectation and certainly key players in our industry have known that for a long time. This is not, however, to say that greater production outcomes are not possible in the NT.
The committee performed productively and constructively because, together with the experts who came before the committee, we were all able to agree on the essential premise that we can do more in the Territory and we can do it sensibly. Those were very good points from the NT Agricultural Association and the NT Horticultural Association.
Another area we looked at was to do with land. A large portion of the land mass in the Territory is owned by Indigenous people. We looked at what is happening on that land and how we can do more. There are several small-scale community market gardens and nurseries in remote communities growing fruit and vegetables for local markets. Production activities in small-scale ventures are mostly periodic and, therefore, there is no current data available. The Indigenous sector of horticulture, crops and forestry is small and there is no data available for volume.
Returning to that research point about data and research, this is clearly an area where we do not have enough information at the moment, partly because we are not doing enough at the moment. This is clearly an area of need. The committee looked at what is happening, where it is happening, and what more can be done. Clearly, when you look at sustainability, this land can sustain more than what it currently does.
There are a couple of examples in the report, such as Bawaninga Nursery, the Desert Springs Melon Farm - I am sure most of us know about the Desert Springs Melon Farm - and the Centrefarm model itself where Aboriginal land is leased to a private organisation for a significant period for the purpose of developing a horticultural enterprise and, then, there is remuneration through land rentals. That is a good way of opening up that land that has been quite productive. That has to grow, in a sense, because that land is definitely capable of sustaining more, not just in what produces food-wise, but also in employment. That started going beyond the charge of the committee, in a sense, but was something we looked at which I believe is quite important.
An industry that is very mature in the Territory, which provides many jobs and a good income for the Territory is the pastoral industry. My family had some involvement in the pastoral industry. If you live in the Territory long enough, your family does everything. We had Tennant Creek Station for a while with 6000 head of cattle. This is going back a fair way now to before I was born - 1958 or 1962 I believe it was – when we had Tennant Creek Station which my great-grandfather, Con Perry, ran.
The cattle industry is a very mature industry in the Territory. It was 50 or 60 years ago when we were involved, and there was a cattle industry way before that. It is a very mature industry which contributes a great deal of employment - they have much understanding and knowledge of the land and, as the report said, are a big part of our social character and makeup. We can all agree with that. They are an effective and efficient - getting back to the point of what we are looking at - industry which has found a niche in how they use our land sustainably in grazing cows here before they are shipped live to Southeast Asia and fattened and sold. It is a very efficient, effective model and is very sustainable.
It was good to hear from them and learn some lessons from them. Their presentation was one of the better presentations. Nothing against the others - they were all very good presentations. However, in some respects, the Cattlemen’s Association has been around for a very long time and were up a level in what challenges they saw and what planning they were making for the future.
So, where are we going? As we said, we are not the food bowl that is traditionally pictured. How do we maximise our land to produce food and what other challenges are there? What land can we use, and how can we better use the existing land we have? How do we see the future?
Around agriculture, the distinct vision was smaller mosaics of intensive plant industry production based around robust agronomic models. You can really picture how they are doing that – small areas of quite intense production. That was the way they saw the agriculture section going; how we can use the water and land resource without over-tapping into it. You definitely get a visual picture when you think mosaics. When you fly around in a plane and get that satellite view - that bird’s eye view - of the Territory, you can understand how they could picture that mosaic. That was one direction and there are more in the Top End picture.
The challenge in Central Australia was around the aquifers and the infrequent recharging they have. There was a real issue about how regularly those aquifers are charged. You cannot rely on how often they are going to be filled, so you have to be careful about the type of food production you have, because that is every year you are growing that food - every single year. If the aquifers are not recharged annually you have to be very careful about not over-tapping that shallow water basin, or possibly a water basin which is not charged as often as you would like. That was a real challenge. One of the caveats on the Centrefarm model in Central Australia was about being very careful how you manage access to those aquifers.
We heard from AZRI there are areas around Alice Springs where further development is definitely possible. We are not saying there is not, but you have to be careful in planning. That goes back to research and data and having a really good understanding of what is underneath the soil, and the rainfall.
We also heard about maximising on pastoral properties where there is land capable of growing crops. There is the example from the Horticultural Association about the table grapes industry, where they have given permission for table grapes to be grown on a pastoral property. I am sure we have all driven past that on the Stuart Highway. That is not a bad way ahead; however, you have to be careful how you manage that. The pastoral industry is very successfully managed at the moment and is sustainable but, clearly, you can find a way of double use of that land, which needs to be considered and managed.
Advancing our food industry must be done in the context of sustainability and understanding our land. To quote the Horticultural Association again, which is very quotable:
- We certainly do not have plains of highly arable organic soils and we certainly do not have an unlimited water resource, but we do have resources.
That was the recurrent message from industry and people we spoke to, saying: ‘Yes, let us do more, but let us do it in a careful, planned way. Let us not over-tap our resources. Let us make sure what we are doing we can keep doing forever. If we are going to plant a crop here let us make sure we can keep doing it’. I believe that was a very sensible and mature approach from industry, which has a very good grasp of what, essentially, are the challenges for the Territory as a place with a growing, healthy industry. We are in a very fortunate position of not having made the mistakes, in many ways, that have been made down south. We are able to learn from those mistakes that have been made in other parts of the world so we do not make those mistakes here - we do not over-assume what our land is capable of doing, or what our water is capable of irrigating. That was the most important, essential message we received from people who spoke to the committee.
Looking at how we can open up that land - I spoke about the doubling up on the pastoral property, the water challenges around Central Australia, the mosaics in the Top End - the last is probably the Centrefarm model which has the potential to be applied on Indigenous-owned land in all the regions of the NT. We heard, as a committee, about the work going on between Top End traditional owners, the NLC and Centrefarm to look at the model, the lessons learned, and how they can establish that model in the Top End. That was on track, and progressing. One of the critical challenges about opening that land up for sustainable development is, obviously, not more than they can handle. It would be a very welcome to see sustainable food production on that land, but also employment, which is a really critical issue coming out of this.
It was not quite within the charge of the committee but, if we can get industry and sustainable agriculture on that land, see food grown and bred on that land, then we will also see employment opportunities. Industry in rural and regional areas is something we all want to see in all shapes. This is one where there is a great deal of potential if we are careful about how we do it, if we get that research and data right, our planning right, if we avoid those mistakes made down south, and if we have the right sets of assumptions going forward.
People who talk about damming the entire Territory and turning it into a massive food bowl just do not understand the soils we have here. The fact that we are often in drought for six months of the year - it rains a bit over the Wet Season but, then, in the Dry there is not much rain. Basically, we are in drought for half the year. There is a lack of understanding about how our climate works, how and what our soils can bear. As long as we get the set of assumptions right going forward - and we know with confidence that our industry has the right set of assumptions because they told us.
They sat in the room and told us what the assumptions were. As I said, they are sentinels; they are the first fixers, they are the ones who most understand the land they are working; they are on the land. They have those assumptions right; we heard them very clearly. It is all encompassed in this report. Therefore, if you get those assumptions right, you can plan carefully for the future, and we are in a very good position.
I commend the work of the chair and the committee secretariat, and the people who came before the committee. It was a very interesting committee to be on. We certainly enjoyed having those people who get their hands dirty working on the land, who understand the land - the sentinels and the first fixers - come before us and talk about what they thought was the broad picture, what they saw regarding where the Territory is going, what they thought the land could handle, and what they think the future holds.
Madam Speaker, there is no doubt the future is bright, and that is why I am very happy to commend this report to the House.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, first, to the chair, thank you very much, and to all the members involved. It was an interesting journey, although the report was tabled - what was it? - in March last year – was it March last year?
Ms Scrymgour: Yes, in Alice Springs.
Mr CHANDLER: Yes, Alice Springs, was it not? Yes. It was a very good committee to be on, because of that bipartisan approach. We all recognise the Territory does have opportunity.
I first thank all those people who contributed to the committee and the hearings and gave up their time. As the member for Fannie Bay alluded to, many people who offer advice and information to committees like this are usually pushing their own barrow. However, most people provided a very balanced approach to the information they were providing.
I will not speak for too long for two reasons: one, the member for Arafura gave a very comprehensive summary in opening which covered just about everything of the report, as did the member for Fannie Bay. I am sure the member for Nhulunbuy will do just the same. Second, it was March last year and I recall writing some very comprehensive notes about this report - which are filed away in my electorate office. I will just talk a little about the journey. From a personal point of view, I was a little worried at the beginning thinking that I had seen some evidence of an over-cautious approach by the Northern Territory government in regard to what could be seen as opportunities in the Northern Territory.
I have to tell you that everyone on the committee had a very open approach to this. There were no closed minds; we were open to the information that came forward. If you read the report, you will see there were no assumptions made prior to the information coming forward; no one had pre-set positions on the matter. That was something that honestly worried me at the start. I thought there would be a little - I do not like to use the word snowballing - push from the government’s side that we had to do all we could to protect the environment and what I would see from the outside as stiflingly industry and any growth. However, that did not happen. Again, I applaud the members on the committee; they were very open to it.
There are two words which came through for me, and one was sustainability. That is something we all have to agree on. It is pointless if we just rush off and overdevelop the Northern Territory. The other side of it was the opportunity. There are still many opportunities in the Northern Territory. Yes, the term ‘food bowl’ is often over used but we need to temper that by saying we can provide a lot more than we are providing today. There are some opportunities out there, and that is something that the government should support, but it also has to be backed up by decent data. That is something the report also calls for.
It is amazing when you travel around the Northern Territory and you can see melons growing in the desert. You can go to Katherine and see peanuts and other crops growing out of what is just red sand. It is an amazing thing to see. Of course, it takes a lot of water but it is something the Northern Territory, particularly the Top End, has an abundance of with Wet Seasons every year. We have the ability to recharge our aquifers, as we see every year. The records, particularly in the last 10 years, have shown a real increase in that water. It has not always been the case, but if you believe some of the science of climate change, rainfalls should increase in the future. That is something that will provide us with some certain opportunities.
What also came through the report for me was the importance of food security. We have seen it in recent times with the live cattle export in Indonesia. Indonesia is now looking at trying to build up its own supply of beef. Food security is going to be one of those things that will impact on us into the future, maybe not for the next few years. However, 20, 30, 50 years down the track, food security for all nations is going to be vitally important. We are all going to be required to pull our own weight to ensure we are doing all we can to provide that food security.
With the Ord River Stage 3, which is on the side of the Northern Territory border, there are some big opportunities. Without trying to take away the bipartisan approach of this committee, there are some real opportunities in some of that early infrastructure there this government has missed working with the Western Australian government on. When I visited there, they were talking about the new channel they were building. Do not quote me on the figures but I think they were looking at a channel of about 6 m wide to provide water into the Stage 2 area. With a little additional money, they could make the channel 8 m wide, which would provide ample water into Stage 3. That is where this government really should be working with the Western Australian government, providing the resources that are needed. Whilst they are doing the work is the easiest time to be doing things like widening that channel, or actually making it wider as they are constructing it, so in the future, Stage 3 has the necessary water required to develop.
There are still opportunities in the Daly River area. I can absolutely say - and we heard it in Question Time today - damming the Daly River is certainly not something on our plans. In fact, I do not know where you would successfully put a dam on the Daly River ...
Mr Wood: Mt Nancar is where they wanted to.
Mr CHANDLER: Yes. It would not be feasible engineering, nor would it provide the necessary water, plus the damage it would create would be just not acceptable. When it comes to water, we sometimes have a little over-cautious approach to it. We have Wet Seasons every year and, as I said, particularly in the last 10 years, we have seen an increase in rainfall in our Wet Seasons. Who knows? That is not to say we are always going to have continued rainfalls as we are having today. Perhaps we will get even more rain; it is still in the hands of the gods. We really have to be fair with our water. It comes down to the data we have and the data we will continue to collect in the future; we get a better picture with what resources we have out there.
I go back to that word, sustainability. We have to have a sustainable approach with any development we have in the Northern Territory. When we talk about development in the Northern Territory, I have heard if you have a map of the Northern Territory, about an A4 size, and you were to put all the towns, the cities, and all the area that is used for horticulture and other purposes, it would fit about the size of one postage stamp. So, it is not a great area we are talking about when it comes to what we have developed and what we will probably develop in many years into the future.
As the member for Fannie Bay said, we certainly need more data and more baseline information. That is why this report covers off on that information. I know the government is doing some work on that at the moment but, with that information, we really should put it to its best use and ensure we do not stifle industry and growth into the future - we support it, but we support it through good data. The one thing I believe this report has indicated is we do have opportunity out there, we do have potential, and it is something we should really be investigating and supporting into the future.
Madam Speaker, again, thank you to the team, to all who were involved, and to those people who provided information in the hearings. It was an interesting journey. Again, I cannot overstate that the approach was very open, and I applaud everyone who was involved in that approach. I believe that comes through in the end document.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I would like to respond to the Northern Territory Capacity to Progress Environmentally Sustainable Agricultural Production committee report - that is a mouthful, I do not know what the acronym would be like. It is a report which has taken some time to come to fruition. A problem with that is sometimes some issues are a little out of date.
On reading, and being part of, the report, it is interesting to note that out of the 16 recommendations, 13 of those come from the last chapter, The Role of Government. Perhaps that, in itself, shows how much work is still required if we are to make sensible decisions about sustainable agriculture in the north. I believe the chair of the committee was spot on when she said in her preface, which I will read a paragraph from:
- The committee agreed that the Northern Territory has a substantial capacity to progress agricultural production in an environmentally sustainable manner. The Territory’s natural resources are finite and have natural limits for the level of development. It is within these limitations that opportunities must be found to develop sustainable agriculture. Pushing too far beyond these limits could result in repeating the mistakes of southern states.
I could also add repeat the mistakes of previous agricultural development in the Northern Territory, examples being Tipperary and Scott Creek.
- However, with improved understanding of the environment and production techniques, there is room for expansion within those limits. With the support of government and active participation of the industry, developing resilient food production systems that use our natural resources responsibly and strategically will ensure that the Northern Territory can continue to play its part in supplying food to the nation and region.
That leads to the fact I do not support those who tend to rubbish the idea the north can be a major contributor to food production for Australia and the world. It may never be the food bowl, but it certainly will be a valuable contributor. There are some fairly negative people out there who, basically, want the Territory locked up for good but have no idea there is potential for the Northern Territory when it comes to agriculture. You only have to see what is being grown at the moment.
You can see that, to move forward, we need governments which are willing to invest in the research to allow us to make those decisions. The recommendations in the report are about moving forward so we do not sit on our hands and listen to the doomsayers, but use our brains and learn from past experience, both good and bad, and achieve something.
I recently had a briefing from the Department of Resources, which will one day be called the department of primary industry, and I was very pleased to receive that briefing. I cannot remember the gentlemen’s names but they were both in research. We had a meeting about watermelon wilt and the snake bean wilt. We did not stick to those two particular crops; we talked about some of the changes occurring in relation to new varieties of bananas and mangos. Many mango varieties are being worked through by the Department of Agriculture in Queensland. However, it is good to see there is ongoing research that is changing and improving agriculture in the Northern Territory. I may be quoted, but Kensington Pride mangos produce something like seven or eight tonnes per hectare, and some of the new varieties produce nearly four times that amount.
We are moving forward, and that is great. Agriculture needs to develop and diversify because we need a diverse economy, not one based on the GST received from the Commonwealth but from our own resources such as agriculture. Agriculture itself needs to be diverse. That was especially highlighted by the problems the live cattle industry had to endure recently. When I commented that this report is slightly dated, it does not mention the effect of the live cattle ban that occurred last year.
The report detailed the issues we need to consider. It should be noted that, although we need to continue with ongoing research, we should not forget much of the knowledge we already have. One of the dangers in the research industry is when people retire, if there is not a succession plan for researchers, there is a danger of research being left in out-of-the-way cupboards and not seen again, or not be available for a continuation of research in the particular area.
Research is the key, and that is expressed clearly in the executive summary. I quote from the third paragraph of the executive summary:
- Increased sustainable agricultural production requires a thorough understanding of the environment, including climate, soil, water and the biosystems that inhabit them; the development of crops and stock suited to that environment; and an understanding of how best to manage them. This can only be achieved with a solid research basis to both identify the environment and trial the effects of different methods of production. Such research only becomes effective once its results are communicated to those who can use it. A strong link is needed between researchers and producers to ensure both well targeted and informed research and the implementation of the results.
- The clearest message the committee received from its inquiry is that more effort is required in the research base for agriculture in the Territory.
I could not agree more.
The report also covers areas such as protection of our biodiversity, water, and soil management, Indigenous economic development, climate change and carbon farming, infrastructure and markets.
The member for Brennan spoke about water. I am also of the belief we have plenty of water; the problem is how you can catch that water, especially in the Wet Season, and store it. There is a section in the report on this particular matter. It is certainly an area in which we need to do more research. If you have lived on the Daly during a flood, you would have to scratch your head as to why you could not take 10% of that water out and store it somewhere. I cannot believe it would have any effect on the environment. The amount of water that goes down the Daly in a big flood is just enormous. Of course, that has a purpose in itself: floods the plains out towards the Moil and flushes out all the prawns into the sea. I still believe if the Romans had sat around and said ‘We cannot use a bit of water in our aqueducts’, there probably would not have been a Roman Empire either.
We have to find the balance between the requirements of humans, balanced with the requirements of the environment. If it means we have to start to think outside the square when it comes to the storage of water, then that is what we have to do. I am pretty sure there have been people looking at this issue for a long time. However, research into that area of water storage is something which needs to be looked at.
I will put on record that I am not actually opposed to dams, but I am opposed to dams in the wrong place. Perhaps there are certain parts of the Daly River catchment upstream where small dams could actually store water, and a number of small dams then could supply areas for agriculture. It is a matter of using your science and research. Dams should not be just taken off the agenda just because they are not the flavour of the day; they should be looked at in a scientific manner. If you could have small dams that simply have very little effect on the environment but, at the same time, accumulatively store a lot of water, then we certainly should look at it.
Darwin could not live without the Darwin River Dam. You could argue the Darwin River Dam caused problems with the environment. Well, it probably did - the barramundi do not have quite as far to go; they cannot go upstream because there is a wall in the road. Perhaps the movement of …
Mr Styles: Get rid of that.
Mr WOOD: Yes. That was the member for Sanderson speaking for the amateur fishing association.
There is the place for dams; it is just they have to be in the right place and be thought through correctly. We cannot have an expanded cropping and horticultural industry unless we have adequate water ...
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr WOOD: So, let us not bury our heads in the sand as some of our green colleagues tend to do, but ensure when we are talking about things we do it in a logical and scientific way.
There will always be downsides to any development. No matter whether it is new suburbs in Palmerston - as you can see, many trees are destroyed - there is an effect on the environment. However, we do not say, do not have new suburbs. What we do is, hopefully, plan them properly so they have a minimal effect on the environment.
An interesting section in the report was the state of the present industry, which discusses the state of agriculture plant industries which include cropping, forestry, and horticulture and, of course, pastures and cattle. Sometimes, people do not realise the amount of development that is already occurring, from an agricultural perspective, in the Northern Territory. I mentioned last year I was heading down to Robinson River, and we stopped at Woolies at Katherine, and they were selling corn, tomatoes, I think sweet potato, and watermelons - all grown locally either at Kalano or on Fox Road somewhere. They were good, high-quality fruit and vegetables. I speak from my own experience. We used to grow lettuce and cabbages on the Daly River in a good Dry Season, no problem at all, plus many other fruit and vegetables. It can be done.
Some of the academics I heard at a talk at the Convention Centre, some three or four years ago, put this whole process of growing food and vegetables here as a load of nonsense. I felt like saying it was obvious they have never grown anything, because they did not know there has been a history of food production in the Northern Territory – some successful, some a disaster. However, you go through those disasters and work out better ways to achieve production without the problems some of those bad projects caused.
We have been able to grow, and we are growing, crops in the Northern Territory, and we are doing it in a sensible way. The question needs to be asked: why can we not do more of it? You do not grow crops for the sake of growing crops - no commercial person would do that. However, as the markets increase and open up, and as there are limitations on the use of water down south, I believe there will be more pressure on opening up the Northern Territory. I say it is probably better that people come to the north rather than try to send water to the south, because I believe that is not the way to go.
The report was developed over a long time and, as I said before, most of it is still current. The main concern would be the live cattle debacle, also the reduction in the number of cattle and the problems with trying to keep their live weight at a certain level.
An area I do not believe the report touched on - at least, not in any major way - is the area of biosecurity. I mentioned to the House I had a meeting with some members of the Department of Resources discussing recent problems with watermelons - something that did not occur a few years ago. You never had to go and graft snake beans before, or watermelons; it was unknown. You just planted seed, which was what was so nice about it; it was not very hard to do. It might have been hard to produce the crop, but planting the seed was not difficult. Now, they have wilt. We know what happened to bananas in the Northern Territory with the introduction of Panama Disease, and there are quite a few other diseases as well. However, but we have overcome some of those problems.
I was talking to the departmental people about sweet potato. I used to grow quite a considerable amount of sweet potato on Bathurst Island, and we used to have a disease which caused very small leaves and the crop would produce no tubers at all. They said the varieties you can buy in the shops at the present time are American varieties and are resistant to those diseases. So, there has been work - even if it is overseas - on producing crops that can overcome some of the plant diseases which have come into the Territory. However, that does not mean we want those diseases. We do not want to have a continual battle fighting against diseases that are reducing our crop production; we need to ensure there is plenty of money going into keeping these diseases out. It is an ongoing problem because people try to bring plant material from places in Asia and, obviously, they succeed at times because Panama Disease did not just fall out of the sky. Although some people believe it came by magpie geese, I believe it came to Australia by plane, more than likely, and has spread from there.
Also, where did we get the wilt for snake bean and watermelons? It appears some of those particular diseases were introduced into the Territory from either interstate or overseas. Therefore, we need to ensure when we are talking about sustainable agriculture - and I use the word ‘sustainable’ meaning if we are going to do something it does not cost the next generation heaps of money to fix up the problem. The sustainability we are talking about is ensuring we reduce the risk of diseases coming into the Territory so we do not spend our taxpayers’ money on fixing up the disease – we need to ensure we do not have that problem at all. At times, we do not take into account the cost to the taxpayer of some of these problems that have arisen simply because people have not done the right thing.
Some people complain about Ord River Stage 2, or the Ord River in general, that it has cost taxpayers a great deal of money, but I believe, in the end, money in the Ord River would be money well spent because it is developing an area for the future where we can grow crops. There are places where I believe the government needs to spend its money on infrastructure and, I would support that knowing, in the long term, that it will be good for the development of agriculture and horticulture - in this case in the Ord and, hopefully, Stage 3 of the Ord, which is in the Northern Territory.
There are plenty of good recommendations in this report which should fit into the 2030 plan - not that we should wait for the year 2030, but we should be heading towards it now and doing something positive. I do not believe we should just sit and say we need to wait for all this research and we need to do this. We should also be actively pursuing and developing our agricultural industry, with a certain amount of precautionary processes. However, we do not want to just say, ‘Well, we do not have all this research done and we have not done all this, therefore, we should not do anything’, as long as we are cautious.
I wonder when I hear people talking about agricultural practices. Well, agricultural practices have been around a long time - things like land left fallow, ploughing in cover crops to increase the humus, ploughing on the contour, developing contour production by planting your trees along the contour to reduce erosion. A lot of those basic agricultural and horticultural practices have been around for over 100 years but, sometimes, when you hear people talk about this, you would think it was something that was brand new. People who are in the agricultural industry and have been in it for a long time know these systems.
Sometimes, I hear people talk about it as if the agricultural sector is dumb. In many cases, some of the developments in the Northern Territory have led to changes in agricultural methods throughout Australia, and one of those was the no till production methods. My understanding is that developed in the Douglas Daly region where the problems with the high and intensive rainfall meant that ploughing land and leaving it bare was just ideal for massive erosion. Some of those farmers found it was easier to leave the stubble and plant directly into the stubble. Now, that technique is moving throughout Australia. In fact, I saw the other day - I think it was on Landline - where one farmer does not plough at all. His ploughs have been put in the shed and left there, because he uses a no till method because they find that the least disturbance of the soil the better; the moisture content is preserved much more than if you open up the ground. I am fairly sure a lot of that work was developed in the Douglas Daly in the days when they were planting crops such soybean and other similar crops.
I thank the people who have put this report together. As I said, it has taken a long time. I thank my fellow members on the committee - the members for Arafura, Nhulunbuy, Fannie Bay, Brennan and Sanderson - and also the staff who have worked on it - Russell Keith, Maria Viegas, Lauren Copley, Pauline Lewis, Kim Cowcher and Robyn Smith - for all the hard work they have done.
I also thank the people who contributed to this report. We have a section in this report from a number of people who put in written submissions,: the Department of Regional Development, Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources; the Horticultural Association; the Environment Protection Authority; and we received oral evidence from the Water Resources Division, the Northern Territory Agricultural Association …
Ms WALKER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move that the member be granted an extension of time to conclude his remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, member for Nhulunbuy.
I notice the Northern Territory Agricultural Association and Fergal O’Gara have brought out a very good publication on sustainable agriculture. For everyone interested in this area, it is certainly worth looking at. The NT Horticultural Association had a PowerPoint presentation. It is certainly interested in sustainable development and is a very proactive association as well.
There was the NT Environment Protection Authority, the NT Cattlemen’s Association, with people like Luke Bowen, who certainly understands their industry is very much part of this sustainable agricultural production. We were happy to get their input. There was the Centrefarm Aboriginal Horticultural Ltd. These people have identified land throughout Central Australia which is suitable for horticultural and agricultural production. The areas which stand out are areas such as Ti Tree and Ali Curung, where there is a very large melon farm near the Ali Curung township. I visited about two years ago and it is a significant area for horticulture. The number of watermelons coming off that area is quite considerable. The disappointing thing for me is there was only one or two local Aboriginal people employed in that development.
I will get back on a pet hobby horse – why do we have welfare when there are adequate jobs next door? I heard a story that people thought the work was too hard. Melon growing is as common throughout Australia as picking oranges and apples. It is all hard work but it is work. It is difficult to understand why you can have welfare next to an industry which requires employees. When I left there was only one Aboriginal person from that community employed on that site and that is disappointing.
The Arid Zone Research Institute - I visited there a couple of years ago - gave some oral evidence. They are carrying out some interesting experiments at the moment, especially in relation to the reuse of sewerage water from Alice Springs. I am unsure, at this stage, whether it is growing any crops yet, but it cannot be too far away. That is an interesting area for research. If you are looking at the reuse of water, there is a good example of how that could happen.
We received evidence from all these people and their comments are included in this document, which is what makes it a pretty fulsome report.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank all members of the staff and fellow members of parliament for compiling this report. I hope it does not sit on a dusty shelf somewhere, and the government looks at it and takes seriously the recommendations put forward.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, today I talk about the report which has been tabled in this House following extensive investigation by the committee into the Northern Territory’s capacity to progress agricultural production in a manner which is environmentally sustainable. Without a doubt, this is a subject of critical importance for the future, not only for the Northern Territory, but for every other jurisdiction in the nation and, indeed, every country around the world.
All governments face growing challenges to develop agricultural industries at a time when there are growing populations which need to be fed, the need to create job markets to work in those industries, and the need to grow agricultural and horticultural economies. We face these challenges whilst also balancing the need to recognise and minimise the impacts on the environment. As the chair said in her opening remarks, the Territory’s natural resources, like any natural resources, are definitely finite.
Governments most definitely have a key role to play in being active participants in, and partners with, agricultural industry. Again, as the chair said in her preface to the report:
- ... developing resilient food production systems that use our natural resources responsibly and strategically will ensure that the Northern Territory can continue to play its part in supplying food to the nation and region.
Since becoming a member of this House, I have been on, and continue to be on, quite a learning curve about the Northern Territory and the many facets of government policy and service delivery, and also learning about the many and multifaceted industries which contribute to our economy at a Territory and a national level.
During the course of the committee’s inquiry, members and secretariat held a number of public hearings – six, in fact. I thought there were more, but six are listed in our report. We gathered a huge amount of evidence about the past, present, and future of the agricultural and horticultural industries in the Northern Territory.
We heard from the various government agencies including the department of Regional Development, department of Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources, the department of Natural Resources and Environment as well as the Environment Protection Authority, AZRI - the Arid Zone Research Institute - and also those key players and industry representative groups such as the Cattlemen’s Association of the Northern Territory, the Northern Territory Horticultural Association, the Northern Territory Agricultural Association, and organisations such as Centrefarm Aboriginal Horticulture.
What has been tabled in this parliament is a very comprehensive account of the committee’s inquiry and its findings, and the subsequent 16 recommendations. To this end, I thank our secretariat for their hard work in pulling the evidence together. I thank Ms Maria Viegas, Ms Lauren Copley, Ms Pauline Lewis, Ms Kim Cowcher, Ms Robyn Smith, but I make special mention of Mr Russell Keith, Clerk Assistant, Committees, for stepping in at quite a late stage of our investigation and reporting, and for his work in assisting, overseeing, and pulling together what was the final report. It is worth noting - and other members, in contributing to this debate, have said - the members on the committee worked well together. It was all very much in the spirit of bipartisanship, as you would expect on such an important subject as this.
In my very early years in the Territory, I spent two years living in Katherine - this is going back about 23, 24 years - where I taught at the high school. Being the small community Katherine is - or it certainly was a bit smaller then - I got to know, as you would expect, many different people from a cross-section of that community, and saw firsthand the important role Katherine and the surrounding region has in the Territory’s agricultural and horticultural communities. Obviously, with many cattle stations in that region, I taught many kids off those stations. Mango farms were, and still are, very productive. Actually, that was the first time I had ever eaten a fresh mango. I always thought it was a very exotic fruit and, indeed, it is, but it was the first time in my life I had ever tasted mangoes.
During my time there, I also saw the establishment of Rowland’s Dairy. I also knew people, including scientists who worked with the CSIRO. Indeed, in the unit I live in, behind me was a couple who were both working for the CSIRO conducting research into developing sustainable crops. Given that the Katherine River provides a year-round source of water, rice and, I think, maize were being trialled at that time with varying degrees of success. More recently, peanuts are one of the crops grown in Katherine.
When I think back to those years, I am also reminded of one of my teaching colleagues who, apart and in addition to being a teacher, with her husband, ran a family business on Florina Road running a mango farm. In fact, she continues to run that farm with her husband while also being the instigator of fresh produce markets in Katherine. In fact, Norma Higgins has been recognised for her contribution to the Territory’s horticultural sector, having been recognised in the past as the Territory’s Rural Woman of the Year in 2008. This was followed in 2010 with Norma receiving recognition nationally for her work in that area. It is that recognition that saw Norma’s photograph placed on the cover of the 2011-12 Yellow and White Pages Directory for the Northern Territory. There is a lovely photograph of her on the front in her work gear, with secateurs in her hand, with the mango trees behind. The caption says: ‘Australians Creating a Better Future, Norma Higgins, food hero …’. I say all power to Norma Higgins.
I heard her being interviewed by Julia Christensen when that photograph appeared. She was asked by Julia Christensen had she gone to the hairdressers, did she think carefully about what she was going to wear? Knowing Norma as I do, she just said: ‘Oh no, I just wear what I wear when I am out there and I did not do anything special. I just stood there in front of the camera’ ...
Mr Westra van Holthe: Hear, hear! She is a great role model.
Ms WALKER: She is, indeed. I still see Norma from time to time. Her son, Tasman, lives and works in Gove. She is a proud grandmother to little Angus, so she does pop out to Gove with her husband, David, from time to time. I just want to read, when I did a quick Google on Norma earlier today, the spiel that appeared that sums up her efforts. It said:
- Norma Higgins is a passionate cook and mango grower who decided to create an opportunity for local farmers and set up a weekly market in Katherine. The market has increased tourism and profits for local growers whose produce was mostly being shipped south. It has delivered tangible self-sustaining economic activity, employment, vocational educational and training outcomes. Norma has also been involved in the Katherine Horticultural Association since its inception, is actively involved with the Primary Industries Training Advisory Council and is a founding member of her local group of NT Women in Agriculture.
Her love of cooking led her and other Katherine women to form the Katherine Region Food Processing Group and obtain a grant to set up a commercial, community kitchen for locals to make their products.
So, congratulations to Norma on being a dedicated teacher for many years. She, obviously, recognises the importance of pathways through education into jobs in this industry and has worked hard in that area.
What it highlights for me is contributions to developing the agricultural and horticultural industries around the Territory occur on a number of different levels in different regions. This goes to Recommendation 1 of the report which recommends that government continue to provide assistance to Centrefarm and other agricultural businesses that develop horticultural enterprises. Whether it be at that smaller level such as we have seen in Katherine or on a bigger scale down in Central Australia or the Top End, they are all important in developing and growing those enterprises and markets.
The committee took evidence from key stakeholders in Centrefarm at the end of one of our Alice Springs sittings. Might we have had more time, I would very much like to have gone out, on the ground, to visit their operations such as the one they have called Desert Springs Melon Farm at Ali Curung where, at the end of November 2009, yields of watermelons were estimated to be approximately $70 000 per hectare, which is quite a considerable yield.
Centrefarm has been in operation since 2002 and, clearly, they have developed a workable model for growing fresh produce in and around communities on Indigenous-owned land in Central Australia, a considerable but very successful achievement in hot, dry conditions made possible by access to water. If you are going to have crops you must have water and, no doubt, that is a real challenge in desert areas. This innovative approach to developing horticultural enterprise in what would normally be a challenging environment clearly benefits Indigenous people through the provision of training and jobs, as well as producing the fresh produce for markets in and beyond the Territory. Of course, what it also means is fresh and very affordable products within these remote communities where food security, I know, can be a problem.
In addition to Centrefarm operation on two sites, they advised us that there are 33 other locations in Central Australia identified for horticultural development. While there are demonstrated results and potential for growth, there are drawbacks and hurdles to overcome, of which some are easier than others.
We also took evidence from AZRI, Arid Zone Research Institute, with witnesses detailing ways in which poor soil and high temperatures might be overcome; for example, by growing lettuces hydroponically and under shade cloth.
Regarding some of those other drawbacks that were mentioned - and not just in Central Australia but within the Northern Territory - there were industry-specific challenges including limited marketing which is uncoordinated. Surely, that is something that it is problematic; it is not insurmountable.
Other drawbacks include the long distances to major wholesale markets in the eastern and southern capital cities, the high cost of goods such as fertilisers due to the primarily very high transport costs - we know those fertilisers are needed because of the relatively overall poor soil quality across the Territory - as well as some poor water quality issues in some areas.
I also note, as a drawback, the increase in population of growers from non-English-speaking backgrounds who are disengaged from the wider community and, therefore, will struggle to access opportunities. Surely, something like that is not insurmountable in supporting those growers for whom English is not a first language.
Another issue was the cost of managing weeds, and also the proximity of bushland near properties and, associated with that, managing native and feral animal populations can be quite a challenge.
We heard also that, in Central Australia, we are quite encouraged by the work that Centrefarm has been doing in producing melons. We heard about producers who are growing table grapes - I know that business has been going for a while. Pomegranates, cabbages and cauliflowers are relatively new to the market, as are olives. Olives thrive in a Mediterranean-type climate and, whilst Central Australia is certainly not Mediterranean, there are, obviously, growers who are adapting their practices to produce that particular crop.
Apart from Central Australia, the committee heard evidence and received submissions about agribusiness from around Katherine and the Top End. Whilst there are certainly good pockets of success, the Northern Territory Horticultural Society were very clear in its advice and evidence provided around limitations to the capacity of the Territory to be the food bowl of the nation. I believe that struck a chord with each one of us on the committee, because it has been mentioned every time. I believe it is important to mention, because it comes up from time to time. It has been in the national debate in recent months that the Northern Territory could and should be the food bowl of the nation. However, there are far too many things at the moment that prohibit that being the case so long as we have a low population, varying soil qualities, diverse climatic conditions, along with a vast geographical area coupled with the tyranny of distance from markets. All of that makes the food bowl concept beyond our reach in the short to medium term.
I commend the NT Horticultural Association for its submission. It put together a very thorough and well-prepared document. They also provided us their Natural Resource Management Strategic Plan 2009-2013, subtitled Driving sustainable horticulture and responsible environmental management in the Northern Territory. That is the type of subtitle which should be on all stakeholders’ strategic plans in the agricultural and horticultural sector, recognising the need for industry, our representative groups and their members to partner with government and form strategic alliances to work towards goals and targets to see that vision of sustainable development a reality.
We also heard from the department of Primary Industry about smaller market gardens at places like Maningrida operated by Bawinanga, and even Yirrkala in my electorate, which still grows the best bananas I have ever tasted.
Knowing the importance of the cattle industry, we certainly welcomed the evidence and the overview which was provided by the NT Cattlemen’s Association. Such was the interest, I believe every member of the committee had requested from Luke Bowen, the CE of the NT Cattlemen’s Association, a copy of his PowerPoint presentation which he delivered to us. It was comprehensive and we all learnt things that we did not know before becoming a member of the committee.
I was particularly interested knowing the role of Indigenous communities and cattlemen in the industry over the years. I was especially interested to hear about the Indigenous Pastoral Program, established in 2002, which has two prime goals: first, an increase in cattle numbers on Aboriginal freehold land; and, second, increasing participation by Aboriginal people in the pastoral industry. We learned there are 18 high-priority properties, six of which are run by owner management, and 12 leased to outside pastoralists. This covers a land area of approximately 53 000 km2. The program has realised an increase in cattle numbers of over 53 000 head.
The program is about providing a number of support mechanisms which will build the long-term capacity of Indigenous pastoral enterprises. This Indigenous Pastoral Program includes a number of stakeholders. Obviously involved are the Central and Northern Land Councils, the Cattlemen’s Association, government agencies, the Indigenous Land Corporation that put funding into the program, the Commonwealth Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, and the Northern Territory department of Regional Development, Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources. It is a really solid example of government working across those sectors to achieve real results.
The focus at the moment is about building up the capacity of people within the current list of priority properties so the results achieved to date will remain sustainable. We know the Northern Territory has a very proud history of Indigenous Territorians, skilful horsemen, involved in the cattle industry. We have seen a drop off in the involvement in that industry. The issues around why that participation has reduced are very complex, but we all hope to see that collective drive to building that capacity continue.
We hear things like the story of Ngukurr School last year where a group of students, as part of their school program, were learning about horsemanship and working on cattle properties ...
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! I move the member be given an extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Ms WALKER: Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the Leader of Government Business.
That droving trip was in September last year. I have gone back through some of the media it generated at the time. An article from the ABC website states:
- With the help of a few teachers, the students walked a herd of 55 cattle more than 70 km through the remote Northern Territory scrub.
…
It’s part of the community’s aim to try to develop a cattle operation for the benefit of the town.
Mining company Western Desert Resources, which is trying to develop an iron ore mine and slurry pipeline in the region, bought the school a breeding herd.
Members have talked about the science behind all of this. Obviously, climate change was an important part of the evidence we received. NRETAS’ submission covered climate change in relation to agriculture in the Northern Territory. They basically dealt with four specific issues, climate change projections for the Northern Territory being one of them. The second one was potential impacts of climate change on agriculture in the Northern Territory. The third was around greenhouse gas emissions from the agriculture sector. The fourth area they addressed was mitigating greenhouse gas emissions from the agriculture sector.
We heard some of that science from the EPA as well. At that time, the Chair of the EPA was Dr Andrew Tupper, head of the Bureau of Meteorology in the Northern Territory. In Dr Tupper we have someone who has vast knowledge and experience in weather patterns, what influences them, and the role of climate change. Without a doubt, the research and the science is absolutely critical in planning to mitigate for potential impacts to ensure that agricultural and horticultural business is sustainable so we can continue to grow those industries. Evidence-based policy based on the science is critical. As the member for Nelson said in his contribution, if we do not have water we cannot move forward. We need to accept the very real threat climate change presents, and to plan for it accordingly.
I do not have anything more to say, other than it has been a very valuable experience to be part of that committee. Like others, I look forward to hearing what government’s response will be to the recommendations in this report.
The last thing I wanted to flag - and it is just an incidental thing - as the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee, we made a decision early on in the piece that we would receive all of our documents electronically, as opposed to piles of folders. So, in my office, I have a pile of red folders that is about this high which is for the Subordinate Legislation committee I am on; and the Public Accounts Committee is all green manila folders which is about this high. When I went digging around, looking for my folders in relation to this particular committee to prepare my contribution today, I came across a pile that is, basically, about this high. That was largely the submissions handed to us by those providing evidence. There is some value in that. I am sure we all printed some of the documents we received, but working towards paperless offices is certainly one thing we can strive for.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend the report to the House.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Education – Investing in Our Future
Education – Investing in Our Future
Dr BURNS (Education and Training): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I have a statement, Education, Investing in Our Future.
Before I turn to the statement, I preface the statement by saying this statement, which was distributed yesterday, also coincided with the release of the Gonski report, which is a comprehensive review of funding and education in Australia. The Gonski review is very important for the Territory, very significant for Australia. It contains 41 recommendations. It is very comprehensive. In the main, I believe, it will be very positive for the Northern Territory, in both the government and non-government sectors. However, it needs much analysis, and there is going to be a lot of work done in the Territory, with other jurisdictions, and with the Commonwealth. It is very important. I know work is going on at present with Treasury and the Education Department. We will be speaking about Gonski in this place in the future, and I am certainly looking forward to it.
I have read as much as I can of Gonski. There is much to take in there. I will be looking to be briefed as soon as possible on the implications. I offer to other members here - wherever they might be in the electorates they represent; whether they be government or non-government - briefings on Gonski when it comes to hand. It is a very important report to the Territory and Australia generally. As I said, this statement I distributed yesterday, coincided with the release of Gonski yesterday. In that context, I just wanted to point out why this particular statement does not address issues within Gonski itself. However, It is an important discussion we will have to have in this place. I am saying to members that as soon as we have a clearer view, you are very welcome to have a briefing from the department on this very important report.
Turning to my written report, we know in the Territory that if a child goes to school every day they will receive a great education. Government has said many times that education is our No 1 priority. We say so because we know it is the key to delivering social, cultural, and economic development to the benefit of all Territorians. We also know it is one of the most important factors in ensuring quality of life for people, and crucial in building a strong economy and a stable and healthy society.
Over the years, this government has gone to extraordinary lengths to ensure that young Territorians have a great education. In 2001, we inherited an education system than was, essentially, neglected as a result of governments that took no real interest in Territory education, especially Indigenous education in the bush. From the very beginning, we set about reforming the education system, building new schools, improving all others, and putting in place programs such as secondary education for remote students which, incredibly, had been denied to Territory kids for over 27 years since self-government.
The education environment in the Territory today is in the best shape it has ever been. We have great schools, excellent teachers and principals, and quality programs, all of which are equal to the best in the country. We know Territorians strongly believe that education and training should be front and centre of the government’s priorities. They made that clear in Territory 2030. We continue to invest heavily in this area with a record $930m budget. We are a government which has a plan and a vision for education in the Territory. Our Smart Territory strategic plan has been at the core of the innovative approach we are taking to education so we have the best schools and our students have the best opportunities ahead of them.
Our efforts have been considered and strategic. It was necessary to have the essentials in place in advance of important amendments to the Education Act and the robust Every Child, Every Day strategy that we are implementing to address unsatisfactory levels of school attendance. Once again, I reiterate the strong message to parents and families that Territory schools are great schools and, if your child goes to school every day, they will get a great education. Through our amendments to the Education Act, we have signalled that we are serious about children attending school regularly. If they do not, there will be real consequences.
In partnership with the Australian government we have ensured Territory students have access to the best possible school facilities in which to learn. The Building Education Revolution, or BER, investment of $270m, and co-investment of $246m by the Territory government, has provided fantastic new infrastructure for government and non-government schools across the Territory.
By way of a snapshot of activity in 2011, the majority of BER projects have been completed, ending an historic and outstanding effort by the building and construction industry to deliver 142 major infrastructure projects. Recent capital works include:
Acacia Hills Special School - the second stage of a $4.7m redevelopment has provided six new general learning areas, all completed and ready for the start of the 2012 school year;
Ross Park Primary - the fourth stage of a $6m major redevelopment was handed over ready for the new school year, which is the final stage of a complete modernisation of the school;
Centralian Middle School - the completion of Stage 2 of the $5.5m refurbishment of the school;
Sanderson Middle School’s $1m upgrade was substantially completed with the new covered outdoor area under construction ready for Term 2, 2012;
Casuarina Senior College has a new state-of-the art science block with three new laboratories, handed over and ready for the start of the new school year. The final works of the $5m upgrade will be completed by the end of February 2012;
significant maintenance projects for a total of $2.7m to upgrade facilities at Driver, Jingili and Wagaman as part of the $33m invested to repair and maintain government schools; and
work on the new $11.7m Nemarluk School at Alawa commenced in 2011 and is substantially complete, with final landscaping in progress ready for the school to open in Term 2, 2012.
The CLP probably does not need reminding of their opposition to the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for schools through the BER. However, it might be timely to consider how our schools and our economy would look if the CLP had had their way and rejected the Commonwealth offer to inject $270m into Territory schools and businesses.
This government has also made significant investments in building new schools with Darwin Middle School, Rosebery Primary School, Rosebery Middle School, Alparra High School, Baniyala Garrangali School, Bonya School, Manyallaluk School and Emu Point School.
All existing middle and senior schools have also received significant investments in upgrades in recent years. As well as this, government primary and group schools received $300 000 each to upgrade facilities in this term of government.
Investment in infrastructure has been further complemented by significant investment in information and communications technology to ensure our schools are as modern as any other Australian school. There are now 1600 access points providing wireless network across all government schools and DET offices. Over 8000 computers have been installed in Northern Territory schools under the Digital Education Revolution and NT-funded computer programs. Desktop video conferencing services are also available for all teachers and staff. Additionally, cutting edge innovation is under way at Nightcliff Middle School where the Apple Learning Centre, based at the Nightcliff education precinct, commenced operation in July 2011. In the six months from July to December 2011, ICT for Learning provided 51 professional learning workshops, with 657 educators participating in more than 1200 hours of professional development.
Excellent teachers and principals: the importance of teachers cannot be underestimated in our quest for improved outcomes for Territory children. Since 2002, the Territory government has employed 407 additional teachers. The impact of these extra teachers extends across the Territory in ensuring appropriate teacher to student ratios, and additional support personnel such as counsellors, behaviour management specialists, English as a Second Language specialists, PE and health specialists, and ICT support.
This government formally recognised the high professional status of teachers in the community with the establishment of the Teacher Registration Board, and continues to provide ongoing professional development for teachers. Territory teachers are the equal of any other teacher in Australia and, as government, we will continue to support them to further their careers.
The Northern Territory is a place where the delivery of education involves unique challenges. We have the largest percentage of Indigenous students and the largest percentage of very remote schools. Leading a school with these sorts of complexities requires quality educators. In recognition of the diverse nature of their work, the department is working in conjunction with the Office of Public Employment to increase the recreation leave of principals in remote areas from five weeks to six weeks. The Henderson government values teachers and provides them with a range of incentives and support programs that recognise the crucial role they play in our community.
In 2011, the Centre for School Leadership, Learning and Development was established in partnership with CDU. The centre provides range of programs and events designed to improve leadership and teaching within our schools, including school leaders programs, principal and teacher orientation, and development programs for high performing principals - Highly Accomplished and Lead Teacher Program, otherwise known as HALT. The centre also provides support programs to teachers such as cross-cultural training, research and development, and collaboration with other jurisdictions’ professional associations and universities to develop the highest quality programs and services for Northern Territory teachers and principals.
Our biggest challenge in providing a stable and sustainable teaching workforce lies with remote schools, and we continue our efforts to be selective in who is recruited to remote schools, and reduce teacher turnover. In order to address this challenge, the Remote Teacher Service has been established which works to ensure that our remote schools are staffed with quality teachers who continue their placement in remote schools for a period of three years.
Another important element of building a sustainable and stable Territory workforce is the Indigenous Employment and Career Development Strategy which aims to develop 200 additional Indigenous teachers. Whilst it is in its early days, there are encouraging signs our investment in teachers through incentives and support is showing dividends, with student outcomes markedly improving in recent years. Teacher retention across the Territory has improved by 10% from 2010 to 2011, and in very remote schools by 13.6%.
Quality programs: the third factor in the equation of providing a vibrant education environment in which students will prosper is the provision of high-quality programs equal to the best in Australia. The government has been unequivocal in its focus on literacy and numeracy as a foundation for a quality education for all students in the Territory. To this end, I have engaged the head of the Australian Council for Educational Research, Professor Geoff Masters, who has provided me with a public report containing 15 strong recommendations, all of which the department has accepted and is in the process of implementing.
An important aspect of Professor Masters’ report is the need for greater emphasis on those very important early years on a child’s life that sets them up for lifelong learning, including the programs we currently have in place such as child and family centres, Families as First Teachers, and mobile preschools. Research has found that laying solid educational foundation in the early years of a child’s life will enable lifelong learning, especially with regard to literacy and numeracy. That is why the Department of Education and Training has made a commitment to look at improving the child to teacher ratio in those very important preschool classes.
Professor Masters acknowledges the establishment of a strong foundation for action that underpins DET’s strategic plan. He also identifies ways in which the system can improve, and proposes high priority actions to clarify and enhance current practices in order to improve literacy and numeracy outcomes.
An encouraging outcome of recent NAPLAN testing is that mean scale scores exceed Australian average cohort gains in 11 out of the 12 reportable domains and year levels. Principals and selected members of school leadership teams are currently undertaking a 12-month literacy and numeracy leadership program designed to enhance principals’ capabilities to embed effective whole-of-school literacy and numeracy teaching, learning, and assessment practices within their own school contexts.
At the other end of the spectrum, we have established Centres of Excellence in our senior secondary schools to ensure even more of our high-performing students have the opportunity to be challenged and extended. Centres of Excellence are now in place at Darwin High School, with 42 students studying maths, science and engineering; Casuarina Senior College, with 29 students in health sciences; Centralian Senior Secondary College, with this new established Centre for Excellence in Sustainable Futures and Solar Energy; and Palmerston Senior College has commenced operation as a Centre for Excellence in the Arts as of the start of the 2012 year.
The bottom line is when a child attends school every day they will get a great education. This government will not lessen its resolve to ensure every child enjoys a quality education and the opportunity for a prosperous life. In 2012, we will expand our commitment to attendance and reengagement with more officers on the ground in regions. This will bring to 31 the number of attendance and truancy employees across the Territory.
As a key component of the Every Child, Every Day strategy, the enrolment and attendance team has, through implementation of the amended Education Act, reengaged 151 students with school in its first six months of operation. This also includes 472 referrals, 151 students reengaged and 39 infringement notices have been issued to date. DET has invested a further $1m to create an additional 14 attendance and truancy officer positions, bringing the total number to 31.
Other initiatives which reinforce the importance of being at school include:
No School No Service agreements with local businesses implemented in Alice Springs, Katherine, Palmerston, Peppimenarti, Borroloola, Nhulunbuy, Groote Eylandt, Yirrkala and Milyakburra;
An exciting initiative commenced early in January when the first flexible school year trial kicked off at the beginning of the 2012 year with Gunbalanya operating on adjusted school terms and holidays. The school started three weeks earlier than its counterparts across the Northern Territory, and the community has embraced the concept with over 100 additional students attending the school during that period of early opening. I acknowledge my colleague, the member for Arafura, for her tireless efforts to ensure this program’s implementation and success. It is important to note this government acknowledges the efforts of the federal government and its work to improve school attendance. As a result, we are integrating the federal government’s SEAM initiative with the Northern Territory government’s Every Child, Every Day initiative, to support greater improvement in school attendance.
Another great initiative is the highly mobile student inclusion unit in Alice Springs, which is an innovative new model of schooling targeted at students aged between five and 12 years who travel to Alice Springs from outlying communities for short periods of time. The program will see information and communication technology used to connect students to their home school and peers, as well as offering creative and stimulating classroom activities designed to reengage students who may have had limited schooling.
The highly successful Clontarf and Girls Academies now cater for approximately 900 Indigenous males and 340 Indigenous girls across 13 schools, with 13 Clontarf and 10 Girls Academies in total. In 2012, Girls Academies will expand to a further three middle schools and one senior school in Darwin. We know the Clontarf model is a proven formula, and I am looking forward to seeing the same outstanding outcomes from our Girls Academy over the coming years.
We have also established a new reengagement centre at Palmerston Senior College to provide disengaged youth with support to reengage with education, or to pursue a pathway to training and employment. There are also Alice Outcomes, an alternative education annexe of Centralian Senior College, catering for those students not suited to mainstream schooling. This includes the Young Mums Program. We must continue to do what we can to support students in their education and pathway into employment because, without this support, these young Territorians will have very limited opportunities as an adult.
Territory kids are good kids. Schools across the Territory are full of students who are well behaved and focused on learning. Like all schools in all jurisdictions, there is a spectrum of behaviours ranging from unruly behaviours to very challenging behaviours that occur from time to time. The Northern Territory is no different, and an unfortunate reality is that some students in some of our schools will exhibit such challenging behaviours on occasions. Whilst extreme incidents involving serious physical assault are not common, and there is no evidence to suggest these behaviours are on the increase, I wish to state quite categorically, they will not be tolerated. As I have stated publically, I am advised there are approximately 12 such incidents per year of student violence towards teachers, and three to four of parents against teachers.
Nonetheless - this should read 34 000 students; it says 40 000 in the statement - there are 34 000 in our system and approximately 43 000 including all systems; so that, I understand, is a typo, so I will repeat. Nonetheless our 34 000 students and teachers are entitled to be safe in their schools and the government will do whatever is necessary to ensure this is the case. To address extreme behaviour in schools, DET is implementing all 11 recommendations of the review into extreme student behaviour.
This review was conducted by a working group that comprised representatives of the Australian Education Union, the Association of School Education Leaders, and Urban and Remote School Principals. The recommendations included:
employing three new positive behaviour advisor positions to help schools with de-escalating extreme behaviour;
The Department of Education and Training already has a budget of $14.6m and 148 staff to support student behaviour in schools, but we can always do more. The chief executive of the department has given a public commitment to look at increasing the number of counsellors to deal with incidents of extreme behaviour and youth suicide prevention.
In support of teachers in classrooms, DET will continue to deliver its online professional learning courses. Some 270 school-based staff have already completed the autism spectrum disorder online course, with 84% of participants being classroom teachers. At the end of 2011, a second course; Understanding and Managing Behaviour, was offered with an uptake of 24 participants over the Christmas period.
A new transition reengagement centre will also be established in Darwin to co-locate a range of programs and services to respond to an increasing need for support for young people aged 12 to 17 years where mainstream schooling is not a suitable model for them. It could be as a result of their behaviour or, perhaps, their living situation, as well as for students who, over the years, have not gone to school enough and have just fallen too far behind. The centre will use a range of facilitators including teachers, trainers, youth workers, social workers, health workers and mentors. There will be a strong focus on building students’ literacy and numeracy skills to lead them into pathways to employment.
This centre will complement the effort under way in Alice Springs through the Edmund Rice Foundation as part of the Alice Springs Youth Hub. Further effort in Alice Springs is also in place with the Alice Springs Youth Action Plan and wraparound education services. There has been $0.5m of funding allocated to support ongoing Youth Action Plan initiatives and responsive projects. Ongoing projects include the employment of nine additional support staff.
Whilst high-level academic achievement and continuation to university or further study is suited to many Territory students, there is also a significant cohort who are more suited to further training and employment. As a government which has been working to meet the challenge that strong economic and population brings, we have placed further emphasis on training pathways and education, and have renamed the Year 12 Certificate to the Northern Territory Certificate of Education and Training. A key goal of the department is to support a smooth transition from school to work.
To this end, the department has established an industry engagement and employment pathways unit using VET in Schools team and the Corporate Engagement Team. The unit will ensure closer engagement between schools, the department and local industry through joint involvement in pre-VET industry exposure programs, industry engagement with teachers and students and, in some cases, direct financial and material support for schools from industry. Its impetus comes from Territory 2030 which exhorts the government to increase the delivery of VET in Schools programs across the Territory, and to develop new relationships between industry and the education and training system.
Preliminary data indicates that in 2011 there were 1987 students undertaking VET in Schools. Of these, 241 students have undertaken VET in the Middle Years program, 275 students are in the Work Ready program, focused on getting them ready to go straight into a job, 930 students placed in structured work placement across the Territory and, in 2012, 191 courses will be funded in 60 schools.
Additionally, the government has established the Beyond School Guarantee, which ensures students who attend school regularly are, first, put on a pathway to training, employment or university and, second, supported to succeed on that pathway.
Training pathways starting at school will continue to be a strong focus and will always ensure strong connections with local industry to ensure we are creating more workers where there will be jobs, especially in the skilled area.
In conclusion, I need to say if you want to see proof of just how good our Territory schools are, you just needed to be standing in the great hall of Parliament House a few weeks ago at the NT Board of Studies Awards. I attended the ceremony where the Northern Territory’s top students were awarded prizes and scholarships to help celebrate their achievements. These young Territorians did as well as top students from around the rest of Australia, and that was a reflection on the quality of our schools, our teachers and our principals. These students, in the main, went to school every day and they received top education equal to anywhere else.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am proud of the achievements of this government and our investment in tackling the issues head on.
I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Deputy Speaker, when I read this statement last night, I first wondered why the government was bringing on this education statement. I figured, first of all, it was the minister’s approach to see if he could extract our policy out of us to see what answers we would bring forward. I am on to you, minister, I am on to you. However, I digress.
No doubt the government would have you believe everything is rosy within the Education Department. The minister was right when he said we have great schools and great teachers. However, are we turning out the very best results in academic achievement and attendance rates in our schools that we possibly could? The sad truth, however, is remarkably different. One only has to turn to DET’s most recent annual report to point out a few failures, or just listen to people working at the coalface delivering education, or parents, or carers.
Just as the minister has the right to provide his opinion of education in the Territory, so do I. In doing so, I will point out just a few items within DET’s latest report just to ensure I am not accused of making things up.
In Year 7, writing achievement, very remote schools, only 17.2% are achieving the national minimum standard, and that is on page 120. Year 9 writing achievement, provincial schools, 75.6% of NT students are achieving the national minimum standard as compared with 84.2% nationally, and that is also on page 120. Year 9 writing achievement, very remote schools, only 13.2% are achieving the national minimum standard, page 120 - only 13.2%. Year 3, reading achievement, all schools, 69.7% of NT students are achieving the national minimum standard as compared to 93.9% nationally. That is a difference there - 69.7% of NT students compared to 93.9% nationally. Year 5, reading achievement, all schools, 64.4% of NT students are achieving the national minimum standard as compared with 91.3% nationally. Also, on page 50, figure 30, Years 8 to 12 apparent retention from 2006 to 2012 sees a reduction from 43.5% in 2006 down to 33% in 2010 when it comes to Indigenous students.
I could, and I will, be accused of cherry picking through the results, because there are some in our urban schools that are far better. On page 107, figure 90, Year 3, reading achievement, 2010, by geolocation - this one interests me because it gives you the breakdown between Australia and the Northern Territory. When it comes to very remote areas, the Northern Territory scores 36.5% compared to 58.6% for very remote schools nationally. Figure 91, Year 5 reading achievement for 2010 by geolocation, very remote, nationally is 47.3% and, yet, the Northern Territory is 23.4%. I am comparing these with very remote areas throughout Australia so it is not confusing things with urban areas - but very remote. Figure 9.2, Year 3 numeracy achievement 2010 by geolocation, 60.5% for very remote, while in the Northern Territory, 37%. There are remarkable differences, so things are not as rosy as the minister might point out in many of these areas.
As I said previously, before I am accused of cherry picking, I also suggest the minister cherry picked his argument by not addressing some of the more challenging results, although I will admit he often speaks about the challenges of remote education in this House, and I certainly agree with that analogy.
It was also interesting last night listening to the federal minister assisting with Education, Brendan O’Connor, on Lateline when, on being questioned in regard to an OECD report on education standards going backwards in Australia, his answer was that they have doubled education funding in the last four years.
It is always the same answer with Labor ministers, whether federal or local. It is the same answer we receive in this House every time an issue is raised: ‘We have spent far more money on that’. Have you thought for one moment about how the money is spent? What are the outcomes? Can existing programs be run differently if they are not working? It is not always about the amount of money being spent; however, that is the only answer you get here from Labor ministers. Do they teach you that stuff?
That same OECD report details how Australia has fallen behind the rest of the world in the last 10 years. Incidentally, during the last 10 years, we have seen Labor governments in place in most states and territories. Maybe there is something in that. Labor has always promoted the fact it is better at education than conservative governments; however, perhaps that is not the case. Perhaps it is not the fact they promote. Perhaps the facts are just as this report indicates: Labor governments around Australia have overseen a dramatic reduction in academic achievement in the last 10 years compared to the rest of the world.
Last night, I was up very late trying to read as much of the Gonski report as I could before my eyelids became heavier than the report. No, I have not read all 319 pages. I have read the executive summary, the conclusion, all 41 recommendations and 26 findings. To back up my last statement, I quote directly from the executive summary in the Gonski report where it says:
- … over the last decade the performance of Australian students has declined at all levels of achievement, notably at the top end. This decline has contributed to the fall in Australia’s international position. In 2000, only one country outperformed Australia in reading and scientific literacy and only two outperformed Australia in mathematical literacy. In 2009, six countries outperformed Australia in reading and scientific literacy and 12 outperformed Australia in mathematical literacy.
So far, I have found the Gonski report one of the easiest government reports I have ever read. I am not 100% sure why, perhaps it is purposely done that way. Nonetheless, it is a good read and I congratulate David Gonski and the rest of the panel for their extensive work on the review on school funding in Australia. I talk about the Gonski review because the minister alluded to it in his speech. In what I have read so far - and while I recognise there could be some good outcomes in regard to school funding in the Northern Territory - the Commonwealth has, perhaps, left us more questions than answers given its response to date. There has been no guarantee it will accept the recommendations or it will fund the $5bn in additional costs. In fact, I heard minister Shorten last night on Q&A suggest the proposed surplus of $5bn is more important than education.
While we can talk about education in the Northern Territory, both sides having their own opinion on the matter, the future will, no doubt, come down to many factors including whether or not the Commonwealth will accept and fund the recommendation of the Gonski review and, moreover, at what detriment to the non-government sector?
It needs to be pointed out on the basis of this report, potentially, every non-government school is on the private school hit list. What can the Northern Territory government do to protect schools such as the Palmerston Christian School, St Joseph’s in Katherine, St Philip’s in Alice Springs or the Essington School Darwin? How will the Northern Territory government manage the issue in a jurisdiction where there is a real two-speed economy if the Commonwealth accepts the funding model where means tests are applied to parents who send their children to private schools?
I can tell you not everyone who sends their children to private schools in the Northern Territory is well off. Currently, government funding favours public schools, as it should when all government funding is taken into account. Government recurrent expenditure per government school student was $14 380 and, for the non-government school students, $7427. Those figures were taken from the Productivity Commission 2012.
The Gonski panel has recommended the government develop and implement a new schooling resources standard (SRS) and suggested it would cost the Commonwealth, state, and territory governments $5bn to implement. The funding model proposed is to compromise the basic entitlement for all students, and additional loadings for students who cost more to educate such as Indigenous students and students with special needs. This could be good news for the Northern Territory. However, as I have already pointed out, the federal government has not committed to the estimated additional cost associated with implementing the proposed SRS, to a time frame to delivery, nor to the future of existing funding arrangements beyond 2013. The only commitment the government has made in its initial response is to speak with state and territory governments and their Education ministers.
The critical issue of indexation remains unresolved. The Gonski panel recommended a new independent authority be created to develop a new indexation process. The government still has not promised to maintain the current levels of indexation in response to the review, so some schools could face funding cuts in real terms. There is a real threat that many schools will have their current levels of funding frozen, resulting in them going backwards over time. Despite federal Labor’s promise that schools will not have funding taken away from the current levels, there is no guarantee that funding will ever increase at the rate they are now. The federal government has also failed to give any guarantee that school fees will not rise should they implement their proposed model.
Given the period the federal government has had to respond to this review, the next steps it proposes are, at best, ambiguous. Current funding arrangements expire at the end of 2013. Schools need certainly about their precise funding assistance for the future. It is unrealistic to expect a new funding model and method of indexation could be agreed by the start of 2014. I call on minister Burns to lobby hard in the interests of the Northern Territory, and do not do what his boss does and roll over to his federal colleagues every time.
The idea of a national funding model with a basic entitlement for all students also has merit as a concept. However, the devil will be in the detail, as it is always with Labour administrations. Preliminary modelling has been conducted by the Gonski panel to determine the cost of a new schooling resources standard. However, the modelling reports do rely on My School and NAPLAN data. I have serious problems, as have my Coalition colleagues and education stakeholders, who have previously raised a number of concerns about using NAPLAN and My School data for the purpose of benchmarking resources. However, more consultation will need to occur on that particular issue.
It is important to remember the issue of resourcing is only one outcome linked to students achievements. Other issues such as teacher quality, parental engagement, and school autonomy, as far as I can see, were not considered in great depth by the panel. As I said, I still have not read the entire report, but that is what I have seen. These issues have a greater impact on student achievement over and above anything else, including how much governments spend on education. All of the OECD countries which are achieving better results than Australia, such as our Asian neighbours, actually spend less on education as a percentage of GDP than Australia does now.
In considering the future of our schools, we should resist the temptation to allow the debate to generate to one simply about money and resources, when there are other important factors relevant to the future of how our schools operate. Despite the federal government’s rhetoric to the contrary, many parents will remain concerned about the very real possibility of a return to the private school hit list. What are the real costs?
The conclusion from the Gonski review is worth repeating in this House and, with your indulgence, I will read the conclusion:
- The panel accepts that resources alone will not be sufficient to fully address Australia’s schooling challenges and achieve a high-quality, internationally respected schooling system. The new funding arrangements must be accompanied by continued and renewed efforts to strengthen and reform Australia’s schooling system.
Australia’s schools, government and non-government, should be staffed with the very best principals and teachers; those who feel empowered to lead and drive change, and create opportunities for students to learn in new ways to meet their individual needs. Classroom should support innovative approaches to learning, not only through the curriculum, technologies and infrastructure, but also through the culture of the school. Principals and teachers should encourage a culture of high expectations, continuous learning, and independence and responsibility for all students. They should also forge connections with parents and the community, as key partners in children’s learning and attitudes to school.
For these practices to be championed in every school, the Australian government and state and territory governments must continue to work together, in consultation with the non-government school sector, to progress the current school reform agenda.
Australia and its children and young people, now and in the future, deserve nothing less.
Madam Deputy Speaker, although it could be accused of being a motherhood statement, I would find it hard for anyone to disagree with the sentiment of that conclusion. Time will tell how seriously the federal government takes this document and so, too, the consequences for the Northern Territory. I openly welcome additional resources for schools with low academic achievement. I welcome additional funding for students with special needs. However, I caution on the ramifications for our private schools and the cost implications on parents and carers in a jurisdiction quickly becoming famous for being the most expensive place to live in Australia.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Deputy Speaker, to listen to the other side talking about education, especially about education outcomes, is a joke, considering that the first time we saw Year 12 students coming out of schools from remote areas was under this Labor government, not under the CLP government. Even their own review, which had recommended to put high schools in remote communities, was abandoned because it would cost too much. Anyway, it was Indigenous kids - who cares? What was important was a clear voice in the northern suburbs.
The reality is, it is the Labor government which invested money in education. It is the Labor government that invested money in the public education system. It is the Labor government, and our Labor government, that invested money in education, not only in the urban environment, but in remote communities. I remember very well how proud I was to visit Kalkarindji, to see that remote school producing the very first Year 12 graduates of Indigenous students. The Gonski report - and quite rightly so - identified some of the shortcomings with our system and we have to address them as a matter of urgency. It is the real thing; it is Labor governments, state or territories or federal, that have invested heavily in education and will continue to do so.
It is the No 1 priority of our government. Across my portfolios, there are countless examples of the importance of education and developing a healthy, prosperous and vibrant Territory, and of where we are growing our own for the future of the Territory - a future that is extremely bright. Our government is committed to providing what the people of the Territory have asked for in Territory 2030, because we went out and asked the people want they wanted. We, or some bureaucrats, did not decide what the people should have or should get. We actually asked them what they would like us to provide for them. What they wanted is for Territorians to meet or exceed the national standards for education and training; education to be promoted as a lifelong goal and opportunity; and Territorians to have access to a world-class education system. The delivery of this commitment by the government is evident across all of my portfolios and I will speak about them in more detail now.
With regard to Health, this government is very proud of the opportunities we have created for school leavers to join the health workforce and to be employed in careers that will improve the lives of their communities and families. In February last year, we celebrated the commencement of the Northern Territory’s full medical program, a cooperation between the Territory’s Labor government and the federal Labor government. The Australian government made a significant investment of $27.8m for a new medical school facility at Charles Darwin University for first- and second-year medical students, and expanded the facilities on-site at Royal Darwin Hospital.
This initiative marks a major milestone in the history of Northern Territory health and education. This is the first time ever Territorians can study medicine in the Northern Territory and graduate as doctors. They can go to the school and become a doctor without leaving the Territory.
The school leavers pathway commenced with a new undergraduate Bachelor of Clinical Science Program that leads 12 students into a sponsored medical program. These students will graduate with a double degree in Science from Flinders/CDU and medicine from Flinders on completion of their studies. The four-year medical program commenced with 24 postgraduate students last year - all Territorians fully sponsored by both the Australian and Northern Territory governments, with their university HECS fees covered. In return, the students are bonded to work for Northern Territory Health for two years at the completion of their studies.
Ten of these students are Indigenous, and we are delighted to welcome them, because we know very well if we grow our own they will stay here, especially the local Indigenous people with extreme knowledge in culture and traditions who will be a valuable tool in our health system. Last week, I welcomed the new intake of medical students for 2012 with a further class of 24 students. This is the first time in the Territory we have four years of medical school training, with the continuation of our program for third- and fourth-year students from South Australia and James Cook University at Royal Darwin Hospital.
A full medical program is great news for the Territory. It will provide great opportunities for our children to access a world-class education, a local secure supply of skilled workforce knowledgeable of our challenges and culture, and a magnet for experienced medicos and academics to come to the Territory to train and develop our future doctors. My department is working closely with education and workforce providers to ensure a sustainable nursing and midwifery workforce through the development of multiple education pathways and employment pipelines. This includes: engaging with the Territory high schools and senior college students and career advisors; the development of a school work experience program for future health professionals; support for Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander students, nurses and midwives through study assistance and cadetships; and study assistance programs for undergraduates and postgraduate nursing and midwifery education.
Many times the CLP asked what outcomes we have achieved. Well, since June 2001, we have employed an additional 720 nurses in our hospitals and health centres throughout the Territory. This has brought the total number of nursing staff to just over 2000 by June 2011. We have also strengthened oral health service education by introducing the Certificate III in Dental Assistant training. This is now in its second year, with four trainees located in Darwin Dental Clinic. The department is the only provider of this training in the Territory, and the establishment of this program is an example of the commitment to local workforce education development.
As we know, one of the foundations of building opportunities for our children is to encourage them to participate in education, and that encouragement starts at the family level. This is why it is critical to support families so we can help to ensure that children get the most they can get out of school and develop a solid education. Part of ensuring our children get the most from school is ensuring they have a supportive home life. My Department of Children and Families provides support to Territory children and families.
Let me start with a progress update on building education in my electorate: Alawa Primary School has received $125 000 worth of new play equipment, shade structure, amphitheatre and pathways, and $1.9m for a new library; Dripstone Middle School has received $200 000 worth of new shade structure and outdoor sporting facilities; and Nakara Primary School has received a $150 000 upgrade in storm water infrastructure and water reticulation, and $2.4m funding for assembly area coverage and a new canteen.
These three schools had successive CLP members, and some of these members actually were elevated to the position of minister for Education. Those three schools had not received any attention for many years. The first time a significant amount of money was spent was following the 2001 election when the Territory got the first Labor government, and I became the local member. I was very proud and very pleased to be able to lobby the government to provide this money to upgrade these three schools that now have become the envy of other schools in the Territory.
Going back to child protection, we have to support families in order for children to be able to go to school and to recognise the value of education and continue their education. The CLP government had a budget of $7m for child protection services. Under the current Labor government, our budget starts at $182m. That is a real commitment to build strong and healthy families which have the capacity to capitalise on the education services the Territory has to offer. To put that into perspective, child protection services have been expanded by the Northern Territory Labor government to include family support services, youth services, out-of-home care services and homelessness.
We have created the position of the Children’s Commissioner for the first time in the Northern Territory, ensuring the wellbeing of vulnerable children. We have grown the workforce of the Department of Children and Families from around 100 staff in 2001 to over 500, and will continue to support the growth of services to children and families in the Territory.
On top of that, we provide education to our staff. I was very pleased yesterday to award the first Certificate in Child Protection to eight of our staff members who graduated from the Flinders University program for remote health with emphasis on child protection.
Last year, we reformed the Education Act to better help our system connect and help students and families who have not been able to see the value of education. For the first time ever, the new legislation makes it mandatory for parents of students to attend compulsory meetings about the child’s attendance, enrolment, or participation.
The Australian government announced the new income management initiative as a non-discriminatory measure in November 2009, which included child protection measures, in addition to the management of child neglect. Under this measure, the Department of Children and Families child protection officers can make a decision that Centrelink manages 70% of a person’s income support when determining that poor use of financial resources is contributing to child neglect or other negative outcomes for a child. Income management, combined with enhanced family support, provides an opportunity to address child neglect issues and, in turn, address any education issues that might be present.
Non-attendance can also be a trigger for child protection notification which will trigger a suite of resources being made available to support the child and their family, if required. I am very pleased to tell you that, at this stage, we have 140 families on income management. Now that people realise we mean business, they talk to us before they fall into the trap and into income management. They want to negotiate and work with us to address the issues which might result in child neglect or the lack of education for their children.
Another positive step towards our commitment to education can be seen in the Alice Springs Youth Hub which was announced as part of the Alice Springs Youth Action Plan. The Alice Springs Youth hub is on the site of the former ANZAC Hill High School. It was established to support and coordinate an integrated approach to youth services and programs in Alice Springs by providing a youth-friendly centralised site for youth services and organisations in Alice Springs, a venue or base for youth events and activities, space for case conferencing, coordination and planning, alternate education programs, and work and skill programs.
In January 2011, the Alice Springs Family Support Centre, the Youth at Risk team, the Alice Springs Youth Services coordinator and the Youth Street Outreach teams from the Department of Children and Families relocated to the Youth Hub. An amount of $1.1m has been committed for capital development of the site. The capital works will improve this ability access and ...
Mrs LAMBLEY: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I draw your attention to the state of the House.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: We lack a quorum. Ring the bells.
Thank you, we have a quorum.
Mr VATSKALIS: In January 2011, the Alice Springs Family Support Centre, the Youth at Risk team, the Alice Springs Youth Centre coordinator, and the Youth Street Outreach teams from the Department of Children and Families relocated to the Youth Hub. An amount of $1.1m had been committed for capital development of the site. The capital works will improve disability access, convert classrooms into office and meeting spaces, and provide for alternative education services. The Alice Springs Youth Services coordinator provides an overall coordination role.
Social enterprise is an important part of the hub, with the community consultation group for the social enterprise caf meeting regularly. The caf, when established, will provide training and employment opportunities for young people. Last year, the hub was the venue for the Northern Territory Youth Week celebrations including the opening event. Over 350 young people attended the celebrations and activities held during the week.
The Youth Hub also held a series of youth-specific events during September 2011 as part of Alice Desert Festival 2011. The events included the BOOM!, fair, dance and live music club nights. Young people were involved in the organisation of the events. They formed committees and took ownership of the events. youTHang attracted approximately 1000 visitors and participants during two weekends of activities.
Alternate education programs also operate from the hub. In February 2011, a youth worker from DCF and a teacher from the Department of Education and Training commenced alternate education programs. From July last year, Edmund Rice has operated an educational outreach program. This program focuses on young people disengaged from school. Edmund Rice uses teachers and youth workers to deliver education programs to young people.
The Family Responsibility Program was announced by the Northern Territory government in 2008 as a statutory program to improve parental responsibility and control for children and young people involved in antisocial behaviour, including truancy and offending. The legislation provides for six government agencies to require parents to enter into family responsibility agreements to improve their parental control over their child or adolescent involved in antisocial behaviour. Failure to comply with an agreement can result in an application to the court for an inquiry into family circumstances for a family responsibility order.
The Northern Territory government provided new funding in 2008 for the establishment of two dedicated family support centres in Darwin and Alice Springs to provide the requisite case management and family support for young people and for their parents, carers, or families subject to a family responsibility agreement. It also has a co-located senior teacher from the department of Education to assist with links to school services and truancy programs.
The Northern Territory government will be allocating $25.2m this financial year to deliver reforms to the child protection and family services system, including enhancing the family support system.
The Department of Education and Training is leading the work with the Australian government around the establishment of integrated children and family centres. The Northern Territory was allocated five child and family centres under the National Partnership Agreement on Indigenous Early Childhood. The sites for these centres are Palmerston, Yuendumu, Maningrida, Gunbalanya, and Ngukurr. DET has linked the establishment of the integrated child and family centres with a Strong Start, Bright Future initiative to form the integrated family service agenda. The Department of Children and Families is a key partner in this agenda. The first two sites for the Strong Start, Bright Future initiative are Groote Eylandt and Gunbalanya.
An integrated service model for child and family support centres built on existing service provision, addressing service gaps, increasing community capacity, and growing a skilled local workforce is being developed. An agreed strategic approach for future investment in child and family services is essential to expand support for vulnerable children and families. Agreement of support has been provided from key Northern Territory government agencies and the Australian government to establish child safety and wellbeing teams. The teams will be placed in the 20 Territory growth towns and will take a broad role in promoting child and community safety. This will allow more targeted discussion and planning for children and families requiring support or intervention.
It is this Northern Territory Labor government which laid down the dollars and initiatives required to address the needs of children in the Territory to support families or children to achieve their best. This is a challenging and far-reaching process, but the Northern Territory government is absolutely committed to making real changes for the wellbeing of Territory children and families. Children are the most vulnerable people in our society. All children are entitled to live safely and in circumstances that enable them to thrive physically, intellectually and emotionally.
When it comes to education, we are also delivering within my portfolio of Resources. I, as minister for Resources, offer a scholarship for young Territorians to undertake university studies in the earth science and geology, mining or petroleum-related profession fields. The scholarship offers financial assistance of $36 000 over a three-year period, and assistance with gaining local employment during university vacation. To date, two students have completed their studies under this scholarship and both are now working in the local exploration and mining industry. Education is about training our own, in responding to skill shortages in our mining and energy industries. Through building relationships and exposing undergraduate students to the opportunities on offer here in the Territory, we will attract them to come and stay and be valuable members of our community.
Fisheries research and aquatic resources management have also provided places for numerous work experience students who are interested in a career in fisheries. Departmental staff also participate in Science Week, run by CSIRO, where they have given presentations on aspects of fisheries science to a group of schoolchildren. Marine Rangers training, in conjunction with Charles Darwin University and the Water Police - nationally accredited Fisheries Compliance (Seafood Industry) Certificate II has been very successful. This course was run in 2009 and 2010 for some 44 Indigenous male rangers. The course in 2011 has been run for 12 Indigenous female rangers.
The Fisheries Indigenous Development Unit has also delivered school talks to primary school classes about the roles of Fisheries and Marine Rangers. In 2010, their presentation was delivered to Indigenous students at Jingili Primary School, in conjunction with Larrakia Rangers.
I now turn to Primary Industry and education. The Department of Resources’ Pastoral Production team provides technical advice and assistance to producers in the general community, which includes schools. In particular, we have had an ongoing association with the Girraween Primary School over the past two to four years. Since the establishment of Taminmin High School, the Department of Resources’ pastoral officers have had a continuous advisory role in the areas of primary production, animal production, weed control, and pastures. Each year, several students undertake work experience at the Douglas Daly Research Farm with our extension officers. Douglas Daly Research Farm also hosts day tours for students from Taminmin College.
Beatrice Hill Farm has also provided many work venues for VET classes from Taminmin College in such activities as artificial insemination, weaning, branding, and other animal husbandry procedures over many years.
The department provided technical input and equipment into the Alawa Primary School Northern Territory Cattlemen’s Association rearing project in 2009. Department of Resources’ officers also assist work experience students from interstate universities who undertake the practical component of their studies.
In conclusion, education is a fundamental component of the Territory 2030 strategy, and the Territory is well placed to deliver a comprehensive and integrated education system that supports children to access a world-class education right here in the Territory. For the first time, a child can go from preschool to becoming a doctor in the Territory, thanks to the initiatives of this Labor government, and children and families have access to support where needed to ensure that children have the ability to capitalise on the educational opportunities that exist under our government.
Madam Speaker, education is a right, and this right is provided to all children in the Territory. It does not matter if they live in Darwin, Alice Springs, Katherine, Yuendumu, Yirrkala or Ngukurr. Our government is the first government to extend secondary education to more students in the Northern Territory. In comparison, the previous CLP government refused to spend the money in the rural and remote areas. They refused to establish high schools in rural and remote areas. The first time we saw Year 12 Indigenous students coming out of secondary school was under the first term of this Labor government. Education is a right - a right for every child, and our government will never deny this right to our children.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, there was an education statement during the August sittings last year, where I spoke briefly on the schools in my electorate and issues and challenges they face. I find it interesting that, less than six months later, we have another statement. I have to ask the question: why? What has happened that has cause for another statement?
That aside, I will comment again on the educational issues in the rural area, as there are issues as we continue to grow and expand. I see no real reference in this statement which is not unexpected, but disappointing. In my electorate there is Bees Creek Primary School, Sattler Christian School, Humpty Doo Primary School, St Francis of Assisi School, Taminmin College, and Middle Point School. They are excellent schools with excellent teaching and support staff, all producing excellent results with students, despite sometimes not receiving the same level of government fairness and equity, in my opinion, as their city cousins.
I have much to do with the schools, and enjoy going to the schools for various events such as assemblies, Harmony Day, meetings, ftes and all manner of fun activities. It amazes me always at the extent of the timetable of events at these schools and the volume of activities in sport, arts, culture, excursions, theatre, trips interstate and overseas and then, of course, there is the schoolwork. The teachers do a remarkable job and sometimes I wish I had the schooling of today’s time, instead of the strict and narrow teaching I received from the primary school I attended. Then, there are the councils with the many parents who give their time freely and work hard to make their schools better places for students and teachers.
In the statement, I noted positive learning centres are talked about on page 20. Palmerston Positive Learning Centre is severely under-resourced and, whilst Taminmin College did finally manage to gain access for some of their students late last year, the centre could only take about 25% of students requiring this service. So, the other 75% of the students who needed this service had to miss out at a time when they probably needed this service the most. Clearly, this is not good enough and I ask the minister for Education to look at the matter of positive learning centres and to start really working hard on a separate centre for the rural area as, sadly, there is a need and it is high time the government addressed this urgent need for our rural students and families.
The minister also talked about professional learning, also on page 20. This is also an area that is under-resourced. Schools are currently funded for relief teachers for about 1.5 days of professional development per year. In light of the implementation of the national curriculum, there needs to be additional professional development funded to give teachers sufficient skills and training to ensure successful implementation. Also, national professional standards for teachers are due to be implemented next year, 2013, and the same deal applies; that the success of this will require additional resources as there will be a high requirement for mentors for graduate probationary teachers, and also a significant amount of evidence collection required. Additional funding for professional development resources and relief teachers to allow experienced teachers to undertake a significant additional workload in mentoring young teachers will be critical.
In reference to the transitional re-engagement centre to be established in Darwin, there would be a need for one of these centres in the Palmerston and rural areas as well. Again, I ask the minister to take this on board when addressing the current and future needs of the rural area schools.
Over the last 12 months, there have been some improvements in regard to the progress with the Taminmin College facilities. I particularly thank the council and the college, under the chairmanship of Beverley Ratahi, who has worked so hard at bringing improvements and securing what should have been coming to the school as a matter of course, given the size and the growth of that school over the last few years. However, there remains much work to be done and a whole lot more support from government, given the size of the school and what it means to the rural area - and I hope, what it means to government.
There needs to be extra resources given to the Special Education Centre, hard cover over the middle school play facility, and temporary canteen redevelopment, whilst permanent funding is being identified in the 2012-13 Budget. The oval should be taken care of this Dry Season, I hope, but the school and the college needs more classrooms still, in particular, science laboratories and an auditorium. The college is bursting at the seams with the numbers, and I urge the minister and the government to continue to listen to the council and provide more resources and improvements in infrastructure for this college.
I read with interest the last paragraph in the statement about proof of how good our schools are by the number of Board of Studies Awards a few weeks ago in Parliament House. I take nothing away from the award recipients, whose awards were, I am sure, well earned and well deserved. However, many students do not receive these types of awards and some students struggle each day just to get to school.
In this regard, I have written recently to the minister for Education asking why two families in my electorate are not receiving transport support, according to the department’s own code, given that they are special needs and attend the Palmerston Special Education Unit. I hope a reply will be positive, as I know both families and they are good families. Like all parents, they want the best for their children, but are struggling a bit with the mixed messages from the department in regard to this transport and perceived lack of support.
Finally, I bring to the minister’s attention Middle Point School out towards Fogg Dam, and how they just cannot get anyone’s attention to help them fix the boggy section right outside the front of their school. In the Wet Season, when the school bus arrives, it pulls up right in the middle of the bog area, as that is the only place to stop safely. I have not written to the minister, but perhaps I will now as the school is not getting the attention it needs. It might seem a little thing, but when a student is in a wheelchair and another one is visually impaired, it becomes a serious safety issue - and that should be one of the issues which should be of concern to government.
Madam Speaker, that is all I have to say on this statement at this point of time.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, yes, it is an important statement and needs to be responded to in the context of the announcement of the findings of the Gonski review. There are two ways we would look at this statement but, in the light of the Gonski review, we then see there are two aspects. One is about the funding levels to address educational disadvantage. It is a fairly well-crafted, sophisticated model that directs financial assistance to the point of need. It has received mixed reviews from the private sector - some of them quite favourable - and there are some quite positive elements to the review. At its macro level, it is a report that gives food for serious consideration as to how to best address those specific needs, particularly the disabled in our education system.
The other aspect is a very important one. I have not heard it being referred to. It has been an ongoing concern of mine, and others. I note the context in which the Gonski review is set is there needs to be a response to those who are not thriving in our education system, and a response around a re-jigging of the funding - open for debate - and how that would apply. Would a local school such as Essington be better off or not? Would St John’s be better off or not?
All those discussions are theoretic because, in the absence of the commitment of the several billion dollars this requires, we really just have a debate which takes us into an area I will talk about in a moment. It is how this would be funded, how the shift then moves to Canberra away from the states, and how the states would have to fill in that gap - being the $5bn with 30% of it coming from the federal government and, from what I understand, 70% from the states. That is a different argument and story.
At the heart of the motivation for the Gonski review - the premise upon which this is based - is there are some problems in our education system nationally that need a response - funding re-jigging. However, the more important and troubling issue is the objective to reverse the slippage in Australia’s school performance. This theme has come up again and again; that the Australian system – for anyone who takes an objective view and measures our own national system against other comparative national systems, the evidence is plain. I am on the record in this parliament saying the Australian national system of education is losing its place in the rankings, and is moving in the wrong direction, year by year by year. That is a great concern. The Gonski review was established to, fundamentally, address that.
If that is the case - having acknowledged that the Australian education system, when you compare it against other education systems, is moving in the wrong direction in most areas – it is cause for concern. That is why the Gonski review was put in place. It proposes measures to address some of the problems we have in our system. If we dwell within the measures described to address educational disadvantage and how it would affect, say, St Philip’s for example, we might be losing sight of a greater concern and our debate will be in the wrong place. We need to move the education debate to a new level because if it is the case - and it is - you can talk about all the great schools. There are heaps of good schools. I have been through most of the schools in the Northern Territory - not most of the remote schools, unfortunately, but to a number of them.
This is nothing against the teachers. I have nothing but admiration for the teachers and the way they are working together. I came away impressed and inspired from all the schools I have been through. However, I noticed there are different approaches in different schools, and there was lack of cohesion and focus in the way in which the curriculum was being implemented. That is another comment. However, broader than that is the teaching profession is working extremely well and working hard. However, the system in which they are operating is not producing the goods. That is not a slight on the teachers, it is the tools with which they have been provided. This is not a slight on our students. We have students who are as bright as any other kid in any other system.
I will pick one country, Singapore. A number of years ago it noticed it was slipping in the international ratings in maths, in particular. What did it do? It spent more money on programs and made announcements - perhaps shifted this and that. It recognised it needed to improve; needed to change the way it delivered that part of the curriculum. So, they did a complete rebuild of the maths curriculum. They focused it, and it was quite explicit in its instruction.
If anyone has an interest in true reform in education, it comes around the construct of the curriculum. We have Labor and the left seducing people with language around reform such as the education revolution language. Education is not a revolution. That is not a revolution. Remember the clever little saying from the former Prime Minister: ‘The laptop is a tool box for the 21st century’ and all those catch phrases? He was talking about bits of equipment. A revolution in education is about the structure of how you organise your school - whether you are going to have it primary, middle school and high school, whether you are going to build a shed or something like that, or improve the facilities at the school. That is all fine but it does not, of itself, constitute a revolution in education. That is around facilities; that is around material things such as a laptop. Laptops, of themselves, equipment, do not improve education necessarily. What improves education is the quality of the teaching profession, adequately equipped and empowered to teach a quality curriculum which is focused.
Going back to Singapore, they noticed that, as a nation, they were slipping. They addressed it, not by building things and not by having smart ads and talking about laptops: ‘The kids need iPads, that will fix it’. They changed the curriculum and, now, that curriculum has borne fruit. They have seen, over a number of years, where they have moved up the rankings. It has borne fruit, there is evidence of it. So much so that other countries now look at that as an example. In the United States, you will go to many schools and they have what is known as the Singapore curriculum in maths. That is where we need to pitch our effort.
When we are talking about the Gonski review and about the statement made by the minister, it still does not have the debate in the right place if we want to effect real change.
The cheeky member for Johnston, who is the minister for Education, is often wanting to chide us, saying: ‘Oh where are your policies, where are your policies?’ Obviously, a smart fellow like that knows very well that the policy framework that was put out at the last election in 2008 - with others that followed in 2009 - are substantive. Go and ask those who have a genuine interest in education. They want to see the debate move into a different place.
What we presented in 2008 - and I will not go through it in case you do not have it and you have not done your homework; you are just playing games up there with the hollow men about what clever thing you can say in the parliament to try to embarrass the opposition because they do not have any policies. Do not worry about that, we know exactly where we are going with that, and it will be at a time we choose, and we will say what needs to be said. We are not in this for game playing; we are in this to ensure we pitch the response at the right time, so people know we are going to be moving education into a different place.
Genuinely, if you are going to use language like ‘revolution’ and ‘education’ or the ‘greatest reform since whatever in the Territory’ - and I can remember a review that was done some time ago. I remember the former minister for Education, Mr Stirling at the time, frothed at the mouth about how great this big review was. It was the best thing that ever happened in the Territory since whatever, a long time ago - make sure it is so far back in the past that it does not bear any possibility that he will not get any credit on the other side because it is in the sweet by and by.
There were a number of recommendations in that review which were overlooked - cherry picked a few and, now, that is behind us. The minister should go back and have a look at that review and just see what was in there. There are some pretty good initiatives which need to be revisited. Little hint - have a look at that body of work because it was quite an objective assessment of our education system and what could be put in place to strengthen it.
Going through the Gonski review, and taking what I believe is the real challenge to move the education debate to a new level, it is not about the funding that you deliver into the school so much; it is the recognising that what we are doing - perhaps it is the area of curriculum and strengthening, empowering our teaching profession - is, ultimately, where it goes.
Dr Ken Rowe who, sadly, passed away in the bushfires in Victoria, wrote a magnificent piece that identifies, through analysis, that the biggest difference made to the education outcomes of students is a teacher who is well equipped. That is a paper that I always have with me. You can talk about all sorts of programs, plans, and schemes that might be able to be advertised with glossy brochures to create a short-term impression but, at the end of the day, it is a quality, motivated, dedicated teacher equipped with a focus and explicit curriculum that makes the biggest difference.
It is not about the money that is spent. They have done assessments - spending more money equals better results. That seems to be the basic thinking of those largely from Labor; that money spent equals a good outcome. No, that is what you have spent. Studies have shown the spending of money has not produced educational improvement proportionately – it has not. There are benefits regarding classroom sizes, of course, but linking classroom size to better education outcomes does not correlate. It does not mean you do not have more appropriately sized classrooms but to say you are going to reduce the size of classes in order to establish that, does not actually stack up. It is easier on the teachers, but what they need is to be strengthened in power with the curriculum.
What comes out of the Gonski review - and what I do not really see in the minister’s statement - is what is quite clear and resonates through the policy positions which were put before the Territory community at the last election - and they still hold today. When I first came into parliament I went to a conference and the then minister for Education, Syd Stirling, said to the teachers in Alice Springs: ‘I have heard the saying that nothing really happens in education until it happens in a classroom to a child’. So, we can talk about all the big things that can happen, say, at Mitchell Centre and the programs that are operating from there, but all of that entire enterprise amounts to nothing if it does not happen for a child in a classroom; that is, learning.
What is clear is if Australia’s education system is slipping - that is clearly established by the Gonski review; that is why it, essentially, was put in place - and if the Northern Territory is the lowest performer in the nation, we have a greater level of urgency. The assumption then goes in the Gonski review that it is dollars that will fix the problem. However, once again, it is how the money would be spent. The money is spent beneficially in some ways, in this case. However, it is still an academic argument because, although the report has been responded to, no money has accompanied it. I believe the Prime Minister will be able to get some messages out of this. However, they will only be hollow if the $5bn tag, which surprised the Prime Minister, does not accompany the recommendations - it will just be academic.
What will come out of it though, sadly, will be, if not the money, teams of consultants which will go around and talk about it, create an impression that something is happening. There will, undoubtedly, be working parties that will go across the nation to the north and the south, the east and the west, and investigate. That will cost a great deal of money. I would love to spend that money in classrooms on things we know make a difference - the things that were described, minister, in our policies. I will touch on those in a moment.
The outcomes we wanted to see in the Gonski review are based on fixing the connection that wealth has to educational outcomes. Is there a direct correlation there? ‘Income, power or possession’, I believe, was the quote from it. I flag with the Treasurer and the shadow Treasurer that the $5bn identified to implement this scheme in 2014 as proposed, I understand, will consist of 30% from the federal government, and 70% from the states. This would be of interest for another level of debate which we had around health; that we would be then shifting responsibility increasingly to the Commonwealth - for education in this case - because with that contract there would have to be some obligation, buy-in, or agreement between the states, territories, and the federal government.
We start moving into a space where we really need to be very vigilant, because the only way education will improve is if we address governance of local schools, understanding the culture and tone of schools, and whether the department has the capacity to really understand the culture of the local school. The minister would well remember the conversation we have had on that front in the past. It is so important to really know the culture of a school and to match the management and support of that culture through the appropriate staff.
There is also the degree of autonomy - the decision is placed as far as possible into the hands of that local school community. In my view - obviously, not the view of Labor - that should increase. Our policies of 2008 point in that direction quite plainly and without reserve. You need to increase the autonomy of local schools, and I am very pleased that has now become a greater rallying cry for those who want real reform in education.
Then, it is the teaching standards. The teaching standards cannot be measured in any objective way unless there is an explicit, clear and focused curriculum. If we are really going to address change in education then that is where we need to be pitching our efforts. I still maintain that view.
What I take from Gonski is an alert that the Australian system is slipping; it says that quite plainly ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move an extension of time for the member to continue his remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr MILLS: … that the Australian system is slipping internationally; that if the Northern Territory is at the bottom of the ladder in this nation’s system, then we really have to do more than a statement which describes the existing framework. I believe we have been conned, as I said before, by the language around Labor’s involvement in education - such as ‘revolutions’, etcetera - when, in fact, it has been more about timetables, bus routes, and constructions. That is not to say they are bad things, but they actually do not constitute reform of themselves.
We need to be debating this seriously with educators, with the union, with parents - and I have conducted a number of forums. You need to have the decision-making closer to the place where those decisions are implemented. You might like to take a couple of initiatives, minister. COGSO is an enterprise which is recognising - and the language says this - that parents are really important in all of this and we are partners. You can say all of that, but let us actually put some money on the table.
For those people who have been elected on school councils, you know what you will get under the Country Liberal Party. This, by the way, is a policy that has been described - you should know it. You can do it too, by the way, I do not mind, because you have pinched a fair bit of good stuff that has come from this side - a place that does not have policy.
I am happy to review the amount, but COGSO needs to have additional funding. We have costed it before. They needed to have two extra staff to be able to provide direct support to school councils, particularly when it comes to the sourcing of grants and that kind of support for local school councils. All local members know what it is like to go to a school council meeting and to know those good souls who step up, put their hand up, and want to play their role. The weight on them is too great and there needs to be additional support for COGSO.
However, more than that, they need the provision of accredited training for anyone who serves on a school council which assists them understand how the budgets operate and their responsibilities - and training which is accredited. You are showing you are valuing these volunteers - we have costed this; it is a little idea you might want to use, minister – who are then able to be recognised and accredited. It would not cost much money if you make that investment in a volunteer, and give them real recognition and training. We have already costed it; I could pass it to you. They would be the type of people who would use those skills and invest it in other places in our community. It would be a win/win with little cost.
The other issue was an identification of an amount of money which would sit at the discretion of a council and a school principal to make decisions on how they would choose to use that in their local school. The Country Liberals will turn the focus directly and genuinely on the local school and empower and strengthen those making decisions; that is, the principal and the school council.
There are a number of other policies if you care to look, but none of us are really too worried about what you are saying, because when you go into an election these type of things are said.
The point of this is, if we are going to address the problem Gonski has put in place to address, we have to recognise the context: the nation’s system is slipping. If that be the case, we are in a particular situation where we need to be focused on the curriculum. This has been raised before your time, minister for Education. The need for the review of the curriculum was acknowledged and it was done, but the basis upon which that review was conducted was not as described here. I would like to hear from you about the basis of that review. At what stage is that review and what are the outcomes?
We need to ensure we, in a very genuine way, move decision-making closer to the local schools and ensure the department’s attention is in the classroom, and the teachers have a greater level of empowerment. They know they are not serving the interest of this enterprise which is in Mitchell Street, but that enterprise in Mitchell Street is there to serve their interest and turn it around. They will know, in practical ways, how that helps them.
Madam Speaker, I will finish by saying what I have said before. This statement is interesting with a number of good initiatives – that is fine. However, as I have said before, and as my colleague, the member for Brennan has done, we need to move the debate into a new place if we are going to effect any change. The Gonski report gives us a clear wake-up call that we have work to do and we need to be moving our discussion somewhere else which is much closer to the local school, greater autonomy, and a greater focus on what happens in a classroom.
Mr HAMPTON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I support the minister’s statement on education and, as it is also known, the art of teaching. This has been a great debate. We are very lucky in the Chamber to have quite a few ex-chalkies as members of parliament. That really enhances the debate we are having around education - as I said, the art of teaching. On our side of the House, the members for Barkly and Nhulunbuy have many years experience in the classroom, particularly in the Northern Territory. It is going to be an even better debate once we hear from some of the ex-chalkies in parliament.
All local members spend a great deal of time in schools in their own electorate talking to teachers, parents, and attending school council meetings. We all have picked up, over many years through our visits to our schools, all the issues, as local members do, particularly around education, schools, and funding - some of the issues the Gonski report has picked up on. I note the focus is on - I have not read all of the report; I do not know how many members have. As the member for Blain said, and the minister raised in his speech, when looking at the Australian schooling system, performance and outcomes, roles of funding partners and system, Australian average government school recurrent costs - all those issues are very important.
One part of the report I want to mention is the section about building momentum for change. That is probably one of the most important parts of the report and one I want to focus on. Minister, as a local member, I certainly look forward to getting a briefing from your department and speaking to your CEO about the report, but particularly how we continue to build that momentum for change. It is not a perfect system of education across our nation, but a very complicated and complex system. From a local member point of view, as a member with a bush electorate with many regional towns as well, I am very interested in getting that briefing and focusing particularly on that part of the Gonski report on building momentum for change.
My education journey has been varied, attending public schools in Alice Springs through Traeger Park and OLSH, and having the opportunity to actually go away to boarding school. That is one model looked at through the Cape York Partnership Program through Noel Pearson. It is talked about a lot. I know the member for Macdonnell, coming from a remote community, went to St Philip’s in Alice Springs to get her education. My own background, from public through to private school, certainly has helped me progress to a position where I can be in this House talking to these really important debates.
Boarding school was a great opportunity to get out, through The Gap of Alice Springs, to meet different people, to have access to some of the best teachers, facilities, a varied program of curriculum, and to explore those opportunities. To meet people from outside of your comfort zone is really important. That is a model in the Territory. There are great partnerships with colleges in Adelaide and Melbourne, through Melbourne Grammar, and Rostrevor College, and Emmanuel College in Adelaide. There are many young Indigenous kids taking up those opportunities, and it is great. It is a model for the Territory that can produce really good outcomes. If we talk about outcomes in education, that is one model I really would recommend. I always encourage families I know that are maybe finding it tough; their children may be getting mixed up in the wrong side of life in Alice Springs particularly. I encourage them and connect them to people I know in the boarding schools and colleges down south. It is not the answer, but it is certainly a really important option that parents living in remote and regional areas, particularly, should have.
Touching on what the member for Blain said, I agree about the unsung heroes. As I get around as the local member, I talk to teachers. I also think the assistant teachers are people who have very strong language and cultural knowledge and experience. Without many of these assistant teachers in our schools - whether they be in urban areas or in remote bush schools - the job for the teacher would be even more difficult. I acknowledge those assistant teachers with language skills, as I said, often with two or three different languages, with the knowledge of family and the knowledge of culture. Their roles in the schools have been very vital in getting those kids to school and keeping them there, but also assisting teachers.
School councils certainly play a very important role. I remember, some time ago, the Aboriginal support program used to be called ASSPA - I am not sure what the acronym stood for. That was one way of trying to engage Aboriginal parents into the school councils, by having some say in their children’s education. It was through the Commonwealth government at the time, but it was taken away some time ago. Those incentives to engage parents into school councils are very important. I believe any initiative like that to reengage parents, particularly Aboriginal parents, into that part of the school system is a good thing.
Turning to the minister’s statements, government believes every child must go to school every day if they are expected to learn and achieve. What this government is aiming to do is to get as many kids as possible to go to school every day so they can fulfil their potential in life. Schools work with parents and other community members in setting attendance targets. We know there are many causes of poor attendance and participation. Therefore, as the minister has outlined in his statement, we need a wide range of solutions. The Every Child, Every Day strategy sets out how the Department of Education and Training will change the patterns of enrolment, attendance, and participation of young Territorians.
We know we will only be able to turn around attendance and participation patterns if families, schools, and communities work together. As I said in the opening remarks of my statement, teachers are very important. Assistant teachers are equally important, as are school councils. However, without parents’ engagement and interests in their child’s education it makes things very hard.
At the same time, Every Child, Every Day recognises the diversity of people and places within the Northern Territory and is flexible in meeting local needs of individual children and young people. The evidence is strong that attending school regularly, finishing school, and going on to further education and training leads to better job prospects, higher incomes, and provides young people with more life choices. That is why it is compulsory in the Northern Territory for children and young people to attend school every day, to complete Year 10 and, then, take part in education until they turn 17 unless they are in full-time training or work.
Attending school and participating in training or work is so important that new innovative strategies have been developed to support communities, parents, principals, and staff to overcome some of those roadblocks to success. The importance is so great that both the Northern Territory and the Australian governments have introduced strong measures for parents who fail to make their children attend regularly, or participate after they had been provided with help and support. These strong messages include the need to engage in family responsibility agreements, and also the potential loss of income support and youth allowance, and a tougher system of fines.
As all speakers to this debate have said, attendance is very important. My role, as a local member, but also as a local person in Alice Springs, is to get around to as many schools as I can. Many of those schools in Alice Springs I visit on a regular basis include Braitling, Larapinta, Sadadeen, Centralian Senior College, Centralian Middle School, Gillen Primary School, to name a few, as well as those in my electorate. It is really important that we focus on attendance and getting those kids to school every day.
It is pleasing to see the early figures in 2011 of school attendance, particularly an increase. It is always good to see an increase in attendance. It is up to 79.2% attendance overall, 89% in urban areas, and 84% in remote areas. Within my own electorate of Stuart, there have been some great successes and improved attendance in the first term of 2011. I will mention those schools that have increased their attendance including Kalkaringi School from 51% last year up to 65.9%, nearly 70%, so far this year.
Kalkaringi is a fantastic school. It is renowned for its graduates, particularly the first graduates from Year 12 some time ago. Like many schools, they go through their ups and downs and, sometimes, there is a high turnover of staff. However, the strong basis of that school is the local people. People such as Michael Paddy and Maurie Ryan have been the backbone, the basis, of that school for many years.
Last year at Lajamanu School, their attendance was around 37.5% - which is very bad, what can you say? However, I am very pleased to see, so far this year, that has gone up to 57.2%. There has been a lot of hard work there. Last year, there were a number of large community meetings with the school council and members of the community to deal with some of those issues. That is the way these things are sorted out in the bush: you get under the nearest tree or on the basketball court. You assemble the community and you talk about it and sort it out - whether it be about the school or other issues on that community. Lajamanu has worked really hard in dealing with the school attendance problems. Those problems occur for many reasons. It is really good to see that school attendance has improved there so far this year.
Laramba School is one of the better schools in my electorate of Stuart regarding attendance. Last year, their attendance rate was 68.6%, this year it was 76.7%. It is on the way up. They are building momentum out in the bush. I was there late last year for the school concert at Laramba, and they are very enthusiastic. They have a great principal and teachers who have been there for many years, and that helps in dealing with those issues and getting school attendance up. They are very hard-working in the Secondary Men’s Program. They try a number of initiatives, from music to visits into Alice Springs and Centralian Middle School and Senior College. It is those people on the ground, those principals and teachers, who just grind away and keep going. That attendance at Laramba is very largely due to the long-term teacher and principal they have there.
Nyirripi School is one of the more remote schools in my electorate: 39.5% attendance last year and they are up to 58%, nearly 59% this year. Again, it is a matter of chipping away, trying different things, getting the community involved, sometimes calling a community meeting at the basketball court and talking about it. It is great to see Nyirripi is building momentum in 2012 for a great year.
Willowra School: 35.6% attendance last year, and up to 55.6% - another great school. They have had their fair share of issues over the years, and they are ones you have to keep working at. There are very complex issues when it comes to families and disagreements. These issues on the ground, as the member for Barkly would know, can have a really dramatic impact on school attendance.
They are some of the great schools in my electorate that have had early success this year. The other one I will mention is Yuendumu, a community that has been known for its issues over the last 18 months or so. I have done a lot of work out there, particularly last year, with the principal, in looking at their school attendance plan, linking it into the local implementation plans. The project we are working on is the oval upgrade and linking that to school attendance at Yuendumu. As they reach certain percentages of school attendance, then we look at how we can upgrade their football oval to NTFL standards.
It is those innovative projects where you localise it, talk with local people, work with the school community and the larger community, and you all chip in together. I am not sure what their attendance is so far this year, but I will certainly ask the minister at some point. I am keen to get back to Yuendumu to work with the principal and the school community about making that school attendance plan work, and seeing attendance grow.
The other issue in education is the art of teaching. I know the report focuses on the funding streams, but I believe education is a lifelong experience; it is a lifelong journey. You can start way back to when babies are born in the family environment, parents as teachers, right through their childcare, Transition, primary school, secondary, and even adult education. One thing I pick up in my trips around the electorate is adult education and the importance of getting those older people back into some form of education or training. That is a particular issue I have come up against at Yarralin, again in my electorate. If you have disengaged young adults who are also very young parents, that cycle just goes around like a revolving door. It is really important that we look at education as a lifelong journey. We need to continue seeing how we can engage those young people, those young parents, and even the older people in those communities, into some form of education or training.
In other areas of Central Australia there have been similar great results. At Centralian Middle School, last year they were just under 80% attendance. This year, they are up to 81.3%. Neutral Junction School, in the electorate of my colleague, the member for Barkly, was at just under 55% last year, and is up to 60.4% this year. Papunya School was at 54.4% last year and is up to 62.2% this year. Obviously, much hard work is going on in the bush, member for Barkly. It is teachers working with parents, the school council, and the whole community chipping away at these issues and building the momentum to increase attendance. Tennant Creek Primary School is another great school - 66.8% attendance last year, up to 67.4% this year. There are really good successes there. It is important to celebrate our successes and to learn from them and look at what they are doing to increase that attendance.
In achievements in Central Australia, the outstanding results from our graduating students last year is proof our schools are second to none. I had the privilege late last year of meeting Jarrad Dickson from Our Lady of the Sacred Heart College in Alice Springs who achieved the highest score in Year 12 in the Northern Territory. It is fantastic to have someone from Alice Springs achieve the highest score across the whole of the Northern Territory for Year 12. His achievement follows former Centralian Senior College student, Bevan Botha, who was the equal top student last year. Unfortunately, I did not get to meet Bevan. Prior to that was Edward Tikoft, whom I met, from St Philip’s College, who was a top student in 2008. Jarrad’s Australian tertiary admission rank, or ATER, was 99.95%, almost perfect - 0.5% off. This is an outstanding result ...
Mr Elferink: You know why they do that? They cannot put in 100; it just will not take it.
Mr HAMPTON: True? Well, there you go. It is still fantastic - unbelievable. I wish I had received that when I was at boarding school. It should guarantee him a place at any university in the country. I was talking to Jarrad and his parents and he is aiming very high. He is aiming to study medicine at Charles Darwin University and, after seeing what his father has done with the Royal Flying Doctor Service, is very passionate about becoming a doctor. I said to him: ‘That is great. When you become a qualified doctor come back to Alice Springs or work somewhere in the Territory’ ...
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move that the member be given an extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr HAMPTON: Thank you, colleagues. Madam Speaker, the outstanding results from Jarrad and many other Year 12 Centralian students show if a child goes to school every day in the Territory they get a great education, equal to that of any other jurisdiction. The sky is the limit.
The establishment of Centralian Middle School in Alice Springs has also been very positive in providing better facilities and resources to young Centralians. The establishment of CMS is a key achievement of the Alice Springs Youth Action Plan. It was very good to see CMS playing a strong role in the local community over the Christmas period, where it opened its doors to events and activities for after-school hours during the holiday break. CMS also had a major role in the success of the summer holiday program in Alice Springs, running a variety of activities over the break. I particularly thank Centralian Middle School and the principal for opening the doors.
We also have some innovative programs operating in our Centralian schools encouraging attendance and boosting retention. Listening to the minister, these programs are growing and reaching Territorians in remote regional areas, which is fantastic. We have all heard about the Clontarf program. We heard how it has been such a huge success. I can proudly say I have had three of my sons participate in the Clontarf Academy. I still have one there at the moment, at Centralian Middle School. The success of programs like Clontarf is not the money you put in, but the people behind the scenes. I acknowledge three local men who have been involved with the program for some time, but have been really much part of the success: Ian McAdam, Charlie Maher and Shaun Cusack. All are great local role models, all local Indigenous fellows who have put much time and effort into the Clontarf program in Alice Springs and, as I said, have been very much part of the success.
The same principle operates at the Centralian Girls Academy program at CMS, Centralian Senior College. Over the last couple of years, I have taken the time to go and have breakfast with some of the young ladies at Centralian Middle School to listen to the issues they face - some of the dreams of what jobs they are chasing when they leave school. It was great to be able to take the Chief Minister there last year. It was also really great to be able to attend the graduation ceremony in Alice Springs last year. They are going to be kicking some goals in the years to come. The academy provide great mentorship support for those young girls but, also, for the mothers, the fathers, and families of those young girls.
They are two great programs that government has been able to support, also through philanthropic organisations such as the Smith Family, the Ricky Grace Foundation and, of course, Gerard Neesham and the Clontarf people from Perth. These are also some of the unsung heroes. As the Gonski report said, he investigated philanthropic organisations and where we can get much more support from them. That is two great models where we have been able to achieve that.
Under the Youth Action Plan, we have also put resources into reengaging disadvantaged secondary aged students. The minister touched on the Edmund Rice Education Australia Youth Plus Program where they run an outreach support and bridging program from the Youth Hub. If there are colleagues who have not been there, I encourage them to go to the Youth Hub in Alice Springs and look at exactly what it is doing. This year, Edmund Rice will be a registered school, and will be offering alternative programs to reengage kids with education, and get them back on to the path of learning. Talking to my colleague, it is important we also look at the juvenile facility in Alice Springs, making sure those young people who are in the facility are getting some form of education. When they leave, maybe there is connection with the Youth Club and the Edmund Rice we can provide those young people with.
The Youth Action Plan has also funded wraparound education services in Alice Springs such as successful targeting health improving education partnerships with Congress. The program provides a visiting nurse and a path to medical services if needed, with the aim of improving students’ health and wellbeing which, of course, has a direct impact on the ability to attend school regularly and learn.
I quickly turn to ICT, a very exciting area of education. We have talked about it before. I have talked about the Arnhem Land fibre-optic project and the opportunities that is providing to many of those schools through Arnhem Land. It would be very difficult for these remote communities and distance education users not being able to deploy these facilities and get online services. There is also the satellite to all remote sites programs or networks. STARS Satellite Network and online learning systems have transformed the delivery of remote education, making Alice Springs and Katherine School of the Air world leaders in delivery of remote and distance education services.
With the implementation of the National Broadband Network, the Northern Territory government has a unique opportunity to improve education outcomes across the Territory. Access to approved national digital learning objects that can be used by teachers and all schools across the Northern Territory, and the digital distribution of books and educational videos for on-demand use in the classroom, regardless of where that classroom is, will become possible over the National Broadband Network.
Another issue is the Department of Education and Training has been able to establish a Nightcliff technology precinct - I am sure you are aware of that, Madam Speaker - that provides tools, resources, and people to professionally develop all learners, and to pilot, test, and review emerging technologies and research as part of our support to teachers and schools to enhance ICT capabilities and enrich teaching and learning. They are just a couple of the ICT initiatives.
Turning quickly to sport and recreation - our Sport Policy One very much focuses on Territory 2030 and how we can engage young people. As we know, sport is a very important vehicle to get kids to school, to live a healthy lifestyle. With regard to the school sports program, over the years I have been able to do a couple of trips with staff from School Sport NT. They rely heavily on volunteers. It is a great program giving kids many opportunities and is one I fully endorse.
Parks and Wildlife recently announced Junior Rangers. I believe my colleague, the member for Casuarina, spoke about rangers. I know schools such as Mataranka and some schools through Nhulunbuy are very active in Junior Ranger programs. This is another program to add to the toolbox for education and engaging young kids.
Regarding the minister’s comments, I certainly welcome attendance officers. As I travel, particularly in Alice Springs, I am continually seeing many young people walking the streets and I wonder whether they should be at school. I am sure the engagement of attendance officers in Alice Springs will be able to deal with some of those issues. The No School, No Service program has been very successful. It has had great support from the business community in Alice Springs. I am aware of the highly mobile unit in Alice Springs. They are very busy and they will keep busy, minister, with the number of people who come into Alice Springs for various reasons. I look forward to a briefing on how that is travelling, perhaps during the middle of the year.
The other issue I quickly mention is the Back to School Bonus voucher. This program has been well received by parents, making costs somewhat easier on families, reducing the burden of school uniforms.
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to support the minister in his statement and I believe it is important we continue to talk about education - even if we talked about it last August. With the Gonski report and the importance of education, it is a debate we should continue to have.
Debate adjourned.
MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Darwin Waterfront Precinct – Status and Operational Management Issues
Darwin Waterfront Precinct – Status and Operational Management Issues
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received the following letter from the member for Port Darwin:
Madam Speaker
- I propose for discussion this day the following definite Matter of Public Importance:
- The status of operational and management issues at the Darwin Waterfront Precinct.
It is signed by the member for Port Darwin.
Is the proposed discussion supported? It is supported.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I thank honourable members for their support, and the government for its indulgence to allow an MPI to be brought on today.
This is a matter of public importance, more than I expected it to be, because I made a determination in my mind’s eye that I would seek leave of my colleagues to introduce an MPI of this nature some time ago and determined to do it this morning, only to discover, as I was driving into work, a media release being fired off by the government in relation to the ships which are coming into town.
I believe the Love Boat - whatever that is called nowadays - as well as the Queen Mary II …
Mr Mills: The Discovery.
Mr ELFERINK: The Discovery - I thank the Leader of the Opposition. These are, obviously, famous and magnificent vessels, particularly the Queen Mary II. One cannot be but impressed by the enormity of this vessel. One could be forgiven for thinking a vessel of that size over the equator would probably cause a wobble in the earth as it rotates. That piece of levity aside, the fact is when these ships tie up, they will then disembark their passengers into our fine city. One of the very first views the passengers of that vessel will get is, essentially, of a vacant lot with some weeds, some mounds of dirt, and the physical appearance of a patch of land which is uninviting.
That is not to say that, prior to the waterfront being developed, the land was particularly inviting at that point. The area of the waterfront development I am referring to has already been built - which I refer to as Stage 1 - and has improved that area remarkably. It certainly does not come close to fulfilling the promises that were made in relation to the Stage 1 development. Nevertheless, most of the public seem fairly happy with the development of Stage 1, and it is certainly not an eyesore by any stretch of imagination.
The unbuilt area, which I refer to as Stage 2 - I know it is Stage 5 in some other people’s minds, but for the ease of conversation, I will refer to it as Stage 2 - remains undeveloped. I believe the land itself is the property of Toga as the developer. The government has an 18% share in all units which are sold as a result of the development of that stage. The billboard at the front advertising this new and exciting development is now sun bleached to the point of bare legibility. The sales office - I presume it is the sales office - is a series of demountables which are looking a bit tired. One could be forgiven for expecting tumbleweeds to roll by as you drive past the front of that development in the Kitchener Drive area.
I understand there are certain commercial realities driving this development and I could well understand that Toga would like to wait until the unit prices in Darwin have improved before they add 1300-odd units into the marketplace, which is how many units as I understand it will, ultimately, be in that whole area going down to the old Iron Ore Wharf which was recently removed.
Whilst I understand that, the problem is the physical appearance of the site is very disappointing indeed. It is not the best foot that Darwin can put forward to the tourists coming off these boats. I listened with interest to the Minister for Tourism today talking about seven boats coming to Darwin in the very near future. All of them will arrive at the terminal there, and the people who get off all of those seven boats will be confronted with the same physical view of that particular part of the waterfront development.
I urge Toga, and government as an interested party in this private development, to be mindful of the impact the area has on the surrounding area. If you go back to the Toga pamphlets that were put out at the time, Toga was very mindful of how they sold Stage 1 - so much so the artist’s impression went to very great care to show grass all over the blocks - which I believe were the property of Fraser Henry – around the back of the Fisherman’s Wharf area. So, Toga wanted to put the best foot forward in the sale of Stage 1, but seem less excited to actually put a real foot forward when it comes to a development of Stage 2. I am not asking for a massive exercise in landscaping, but a lawn would be nice, and some basic levelling just to tidy the place up until Toga determines it is the necessary time to proceed with the development.
Having made that observation, I turn my attention to one component of the proposed development. It has come to my attention, through various means, that the Toga development, like so many developments, requires an element of pre-sales, and the contracts for the development of the Stage 2 area - the stage that is currently unbuilt - were signed with a sunset clause in them, which I believe was 31 December 2013. It is interesting to note the government - certainly not in any of its announcements - has not bound itself to any time frame particularly beyond making a promise that by the year 2020 those units will all be developed. Turning my attention back to the sunset clauses, they clearly do not anticipate the same time line as the 2013 sunset clauses in the pre-sale arrangements.
I would be disappointed if Toga did not endeavour to pursue a date of completion of 2013 to make good on those contracts. I do not know if there are any penalty clauses in those contracts but, if there are not, then Toga - and, by proxy, the Northern Territory government - has bound people to fulfil a contractual commitment to ensure they are able to pay for the units they have pre-sales for and, in the same process, not binding themselves to anything.
It would be extremely disappointing, if the Territory economy grows to the level that government says it will, Toga will then allow those sunset clauses to expire. Whilst that may have the effect of releasing the contracting parties from the contract, it would be disappointing if there was no penalty clause and Toga was simply using the vehicle of the passage of time to enable itself to resell those units at a substantially larger price than at the time of the original signing of contract. If that is occurring, and if that does occur, I would have no choice but to hold the government complicit because it has a direct pecuniary interest in the outcome and sale of those units. That property right the government maintains, the 18%, would make the government a part developer of the project and, as a consequence, stand at loggerheads with itself, because it is also the final approving authority. It would be an interesting circumstance where someone, or an organisation, with a pecuniary interest would also be the approving authority for any development.
I also turn my attention to another component of how the waterfront is being organised. I notice the Chief Minister, as minister responsible for the Darwin waterfront, has introduced a bill into this House which I have not yet read - he introduced it last week - which will enable the ratings arrangements to be ‘clarified’, I understand was the word he used. It raises the other component of what is happening at the waterfront. I am concerned the people who are being asked to pay rates, who suffer all the consequences for failing to pay rates, do not have representation in any form of local government authority.
As I said the last time I raised this in adjournments last week, I am mindful and understand the reasons why local government services were being provided by an organisation other than the Darwin City Council. I do not lay blame for this situation at the government’s feet. It was a refusal by the Darwin City Council at the time to take on the municipal role for that particular area. However, what we have now is a circumstance in which the Darwin City Council has a contracting role to provide services to the Darwin Waterfront Corporation. You have a rather bizarre situation where the council, which has no municipal role whatsoever in the waterfront, nevertheless sends its people down to the waterfront to give out parking tickets and run other municipal services in the waterfront area.
It is astonishing that this situation continues and I ask government, as well as the Darwin City Council, to determine some way through it, to resolve it, for a couple of reasons. The first reason is the principled reason of taxation without representation; namely, the collection of council rates - or should I say, local government rates - without any elected body to aspire to, if you happen to be a ratepayer.
A second component of this is there is a capacity for the Darwin Waterfront Corporation and, as I understand it, they are now levying, a 20% surcharge on the rates. What I have been unable to determine or discover is what that 20% surcharge is actually being charged for. Rubbish is collected, other municipal services are provided, but none of those municipal services seem to exceed or go beyond municipal services which are provided by any council in any other area. So, what is the 20% for? Some people suggest that the mere exclusivity of the area may justify a 20% surcharge. I do not accept that.
The system of rating at the waterfront, I imagine, operates on the same UCV system that would operate in any other environment and, by virtue of the fact that land is worth so much more than it is anywhere else in Darwin, I imagine, the higher rate would be automatically paid anyhow. There is a Darwin Waterfront Corporation surcharge on this rate collection process which does not have any rationale, that I can see, about it. If exclusivity is the rationale for it, then it would already be captured in the UCV component. There are no further services being offered and, so, I would like to know and have a clear indication from the Northern Territory government – ultimately, as the local government authority - as to why this 20% surcharge is being applied, and what services are being offered to people at the waterfront which are otherwise not available to people who live elsewhere within the municipality of Darwin?
Madam Speaker, my concerns, in summary, are effectively that the current undeveloped area covered by the Darwin Waterfront Corporation is, frankly, not a good look at all. In fact, it is very untidy and very disappointing. The second component is that the council arrangements at the waterfront are unsatisfactory. I believe the time has come for the Darwin City Council and the Darwin Waterfront Corporation to resolve whatever differences existed in the past, and endeavour to absorb the waterfront area into the municipality of Darwin for the purposes of normalisation of local government services.
The other component I wanted to touch on is the requirement for a review under the Darwin Waterfront Corporation legislation, the enabling legislation. When the legislation was passed, there were assurances given by the Northern Territory government - in fact, there was an acknowledgement, essentially, by the Northern Territory government at the time - that the circumstances surrounding the effective municipal services were less than perfect and, once people had taken up residence in the area, there was going to be a review of the operation of the area. I note there have been three annual reports. However, the annual reports are required by a different part of the legislation. The legislation - I cannot remember the section number, it could well be 31 off the top of my head - was quite specific that after people started living down there and were paying rates, there would be a review after 12 months.
That review has not been tabled in this parliament, and I have never seen that review. What I seek from government in their response to this matter of public importance is that they are able to: (a) confirm that that review had been conducted in accordance with the law of the Northern Territory; and (b) that review be made public. It is an unsatisfactory situation in which we find ourselves. We have a promise of a review arising out of a poor set of circumstances because of the municipal problems the Darwin City Council had and, now, not to see that review, I consider disappointing. I would hate to see the government place me and other people into a situation where the government would be accused of covering up or hiding the findings of any such review. So, if the review is being done, then I ask the government to take this opportunity here to table the review.
Ultimately, I know the area will be developed. However, this is a matter of public importance because it has much to do with how Darwin, and particularly the waterfront area, presents itself to visitors, as well as to the people who live here. The Territory government has a vested interest in the sale of the waterfront units. I would hate to see a circumstance where the government is aware that these sunset clauses are going to occur, and they are going to let them slide by with the view to extracting even more out of the development process of the 1300 units. If that is what the Toga group is planning to do, then I would be very disappointed. I hope Toga and, by inference, the government, would make every effort to honour the contracts which have been made between Toga and the people who have signed up to these pre-sales.
There was some verbal indication for some people who purchased at the pre-sale point that there was an expectation these units would be developed by, essentially, November 2011. I am fully aware of the operation of the statute of frauds and collateral contracts, and other surrounding comments so the contracts themselves do not actually nominate that date, but there was a certain amount of reliance on contracting parties.
Madam Speaker, I look forward to the government’s response in relation to this. The government does have a duty to be straight up and down with the people who live there, and I await with angst the government’s reply.
Dr BURNS (Education and Training): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is with pleasure that I speak to this matter of public importance and put it in the historical context. The historical context, basically, is the CLP has always hated this waterfront development. In fact, they are on the record that ...
Mr Tollner: You have no idea, you drongo!
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask the member for Fong Lim to withdraw that unparliamentary remark.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Fong Lim, I ask you to withdraw, please.
Mr TOLLNER: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, I withdraw and reiterate that the CLP actually came up with the idea of developing the waterfront.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Resume your seat, thank you. I simply asked you to withdraw, not to make a statement.
Mr TOLLNER: I already have withdrawn.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Resume your seat, member for Fong Lim! You do not have the call.
Dr BURNS: I will come to that, member for Fong Lim; I will deal with that. Here we have: 3 December 2004, ‘Scrap waterfront call’. This is in the NT News: ‘CLP leader wants to revert to 1999 model’. In one, we have the DNA of the CLP’s ‘back to the future’ stuff. It is always back to the future, back to where they were, back to their 27 years.
They wanted to revert to their 1999 model when this was being constructed and developed in 2004. It was my pleasure, at that time, as Minister for Lands and Planning and Minister for Construction and Infrastructure, to have responsibility, if you like, for the construction of the Convention Centre and for the changes that occurred in land tenure there, and also to interact with Toga and the merchant bankers in relation to this particular development.
In this article it says:
Opposition Leader Terry Mills tried to censure the government in parliament yesterday over the project. He accused the government of trying to mislead Territorians over the height of planned apartment buildings.
So well I remember. It was almost like trench warfare here, sittings after sittings, censure after censure, question after question, the CLP continually trying to put roadblocks in the way of this magnificent development that has come to fruition, in stages, and will continue, as the member for Port Darwin said, until the year 2020.
I will come back to - this diagram does not show it very well, but here is the CLP plan. It has this giant flagpole in the middle of what looks like an inflated doughnut, or something like that. That was the centrepiece. It was a spire, a monument, I think they said. Then there was a lot of car parking around it. I am not sure whether the other buildings which surround it was actually the convention centre or residential blocks. I will table this soon.
Interestingly, the Iron Ore Wharf is still there and the conveyor belt. It has been airbrushed a little so it does not look like an iron ore wharf anymore. That was the CLP plan. It is quite bizarre, really. The other thing the Opposition Leader, at that stage - he was Opposition Leader in 2004, we know how that got handed back to Denis Burke prior to the election, but that is another story. I have dealt with that in other debates here. It says here:
- Mr Mills questioned the $900m private investment in the project.
Here we have the CLP - the socialist CLP - fighting against private investor involvement in a project. Clare Martin, at that time, found it quite a bizarre position for the Opposition Leader to put forward that, somehow, he would object to a private sector development in this project. Indeed, from memory, it was around $140m of government money that leveraged that $900m investment at the time. I thought it was really the way to go. Paul Tyrrell was front and centre in this whole negotiation. It was a coup for the Northern Territory.
I will turn into the specifics of the member’s MPI in a second, but I can honestly say Territorians and people living in Darwin really value that development there. The CLP objected to the Convention Centre being built there. They wanted it built along The Esplanade, from memory, at one stage. They were not really sure where they were going to build it - maybe next door to this parliament; it was somewhere around there. We know they had a failed go at the Hotel Darwin at one stage; they were looking at that.
This Convention Centre project, which came to fruition, is really appreciated by Darwin people. A whole range of people attend functions there; it attracts conventions from all over Australia. It is a top-class facility. Along with that, as the member for Port Darwin is alluding to, we have residential development and some commercial development. It was quite a complex undertaking. I remember, as Minister for Lands and Planning at the time, actually working through those issues and regularly inspecting the project which, incidentally, was built by local contractors, Macmahon. They did a great job building that Convention Centre, which I believe is a jewel for Darwin.
We have had the CLP alternatives. That industrial land this development is occurring on until 2020, was really vacant industrial land. I also remember, as I am recollecting now, the trenchant, strident opposition from the then Lord Mayor of Darwin, Peter Adamson, who absolutely opposed this thing at every turn and was quite dishonest in the way he did it.
I remember one time he alleged that contaminated soil had been taken from the waterfront to the Darwin City Council dump, and accused us of not having the right environmental safeguards. I clearly remember inviting other aldermen down there where they were briefed on the processes around remediating and disposing of that soil. Very little was disposed of. The truckload he talked about did not come from the waterfront at all; it came from somewhere else; another development in Darwin. He was quite dishonest. As the member for Port Darwin alluded to, it was probably him, front and centre, who really propelled the waterfront into the arrangement it is in now because he refused to take it on as a local government responsibility. I say shame on him! That is an important issue.
In relation to the four matters the member for Port Darwin raised, he talked about the amenity first, and I will deal with that. He then talked about the time line for development of the current stage, in total, until 2020, and he asked some questions about that. He then raised issues in relation to the amendments to the Darwin Waterfront Corporation Act that had been moved in this parliament by the Chief Minister. Last, he talked about the requirements for review. I will specifically try to deal with all the issues you have raised ...
Mr Elferink: And the 20% levy.
Dr BURNS: I have the 20% levy underneath the amendment to the Darwin Waterfront Corporation Act - you raised that issue underneath that. I could call that 3(a) and 3(b) if you like, but I will come to that.
In regard to the amenity, as I said before, that land was vacant industrial land. In fact, my memory tells me, prior to this government coming to power, the facility for the cruise ships existed on the other wharf - on Stokes Hill Wharf not Fort Hill Wharf. We constructed a facility there for cruise ships. I forget the exact figure now - it is probably a few years ago ...
Mr Elferink: It was $4.5m.
Dr BURNS: Thank you, member for Port Darwin. It was constructed at a cost to the taxpayer, but an investment. I really commend the Minister for Tourism because we are attracting more cruise ships. Global uncertainty in other areas makes cruise ships visits problematic in some ports. They are very pleased to visit Darwin, and some quite large ships visit. We have the Queen Mary II coming and that is a big filler for the Darwin economy.
Yes, they will come here. They will see some vacant land there, but this is a long-term project until 2020. That was always the plan for this particular project. However, they will not see the iron ore wharf. They would have seen it in your sketch. It was still there in what ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I appreciate the need for the minister to play politics, but he does not have to yell. I am not accusing the government of anything other than calling on the government to attend to a few things.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is your point of order, member for Port Darwin?
Mr ELFERINK: I am saying he does not have to yell and scream as he is at the moment. He can take a pill, slow down, and answer the question, and we would be well obliged.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Can you resume your seat. There are some members on this side of the House who also have very loud voices when they are talking. There is no point of order.
Dr BURNS: Madam Deputy Speaker, I was diverted. What probably upset the member for Port Darwin is I was trying to address his concerns in the order he raised them. He talked about a faded billboard, and the sales office. I am advised that Toga does have an office. They have had a large, modern glass-fronted sales office fronting the palm grove in Kitchener Drive for over two years. The office is extremely large, well-presented and offers intending purchasers of Stage 2 an excellent overview of the vision for the precinct, including the scale model …
Mr Elferink: But a demountable.
Dr BURNS: It is not a demountable as stated by you. That is the first thing. I have tried to address that issue.
In relation to the dealings by Toga, they have contracts with people I understand are supposed to come to fruition in 2013. Toga is a company with large developments all around Australia; this is one of them. I understand they have $800m worth of developments in Sydney. I do not know whether the member for Port Darwin has visited Toga in Sydney, or whether he has had many discussions with the principals of Toga. These are very experienced developers, and I have every confidence they will meet their time lines. They are in on the ground floor in this, and they are proceeding, and continue to sell. Basically, the member for Port Darwin is alleging some sort of conspiracy on the port …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am not alleging a conspiracy, I am flagging a concern. I just want the minister to become less shrill and simply address the issue.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is the point of order? There is no point of order, member for Port Darwin.
Mr Elferink: I recommend Valium for the minister because clearly his frothing is just ridiculous.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Resume your seat, member for Port Darwin. Resume your seat, thank you. There is no point of order. You have had your contribution in this debate. Leader of Government Business, you have the call.
Dr BURNS: Thanks, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have every confidence in Toga and their ability to deliver. They are certainly very experienced people in developments. They have large backing, not only here but all around Australia. Basically, this is a longer-term project; we have always known that. Government has said that.
What I was asserting before was the member for Port Darwin seemed to be saying that Toga was sitting on their units for a time so they could reap more money which is a conspiracy, a strategy - whatever you want to call it. I am saying I do not believe that is so. I believe Toga is an ethical company and they have vast experience in developments all around Australia - I think in every jurisdiction in Australia. They have a very good name throughout Australia, and I do not think they would really be appreciating some of the assertions being made by the member for Port Darwin.
He then alluded to current amendments to the Darwin Waterfront Corporations Act. It is my information - and I do not want to preempt or anticipate debate - the amendments are all about correcting a technical issue between this act and the Unit Title Schemes Act based on the current wording of section 15(7). It is not sufficiently clear that the corporation can levy rates directly on the owner of the unit and, at the same time, levy rates on the common property at the highest level of the scheme. If not corrected, this could have a considerable administrative and financial impact on the corporation, as well as the body corporate managers or administrators. That is the rationale for the amendments to the act.
He mentioned the capacity to elect their local representatives. Of course, this is something, as I have said, that was forced on government by the intransigent attitude of the then Lord Mayor. It is something that, with time, will change. However, the current challenge is to make this whole thing workable.
Regarding the extra services, it is my advice the principle, first, is maintained to an exceptionally high level. Intending purchasers were advised in the information memorandum attached to their sales contracts that a common area rate of up to 20% of the aggregate of the individual rates was likely to apply. Basically, I am advised people were told about this before they purchased; that there would be this 20%. In the extras that are being delivered there: the maintenance of the recreation lagoon; maintenance of boardwalks; active security and CCTV camera maintenance; the patrolled beach; maintenance of high-standard public domain lighting including pole lights, wall lights, bollard lights, wall lights and uplights; high level of landscaping – and this is very significant, member for Port Darwin; irrigation system maintenance as there are about 750 trees and 29 000 shrubs throughout the public areas of the precinct; cleaning and sealing of the pathways; maintenance and cleaning of the public elements; and high frequency lawn mowing and maintenance to a high standard of presentation.
I acknowledge all of the facilities there can be used by the public, which has access to them. However, I strongly argue, member for Port Darwin, that the amenity of the area and some of the elements I have mentioned actually add value to the property of those people who live there, and make them proud to be able to live there.
I am further advised, member for Port Darwin, the total of the levy across the whole development is $33 000, across all people in residence there, which I am advised number 125 people. That works out to about $200 per owner per year. So, people are being levied that extra amount for that amenity, and I believe that amenity adds to the value of the properties.
You, importantly, mentioned the review - and you are entirely right. The review was required under section 37 of the act and, you are also correct in that the review was not completed within 12 months of the occupancy permit being issued. That is quite true but, in conversation with people in the corporation, they advised the by-laws were not enacted by the 12 months and the rates were not levied until after the 12 months. I have asked the direct question of the corporation: when will the review be available for the public? I am told it will be within six to eight weeks, member for Port Darwin. So, you are right, and it is a good point about the review being required under the act and the review was not done after 12 months. It is being completed, and I have been advised by the corporation that it will be made public, with a caveat, excluding those areas that might be commercial-in-confidence, but all other suitable material will be released in a public manner.
In summary, the CLP have opposed and put obstacles in this whole development down there. It must pain them when they go to functions. I have seen the look. I have sat across the table from the member for Port Darwin when people from interstate and others enthused about this wonderful Convention Centre. You would think that, instead of having a lovely meal on his plate, it is a whole plate full of salty plums that he has had to chew on, or a great big slice of lemon. He does not look happy when people talk about it, and he feels very uncomfortable about it. I have glanced across at the Leader of the Opposition. He shifts on his chair a little when the praise comes through for this wonderful Convention Centre.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe it a wonderful achievement by this government. We have a long-term vision, a long-term plan for that area. Certainly, you can look at vacant land and grass etcetera. It has been attended to, but we are looking to the future. We are looking to 2020 for the completion of this project.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, the warrior comes out, firing the same old shots.
I commend the member for Port Darwin, an outstanding local member, who provided very accurate and insightful coverage of issues which are of concern to his constituents and are of importance to development in our capital city. There was some adequacy in parts of the response. Other aspects of it were not covered, and I will leave that for the member for Port Darwin to pursue. The matters raised by the member for Port Darwin were raised on behalf of people who have concerns. They have questions that need to be answered and they need clarification.
The crusty old warrior on the other side is keen to take an unhealthy delight in his role. It makes me a little uncomfortable to see how much the honourable member enjoys that part of his role that he has assumed with such gladness. He seems to, obviously, push others aside who want to sit in the Chamber here and have a shot. ‘No, let me do it’, he says, and the others gladly step aside because, for some strange reason, this man enjoys that level of engagement. So, he is here night after night after night, getting strange delight from these odd, and a little disturbing, nasty attacks.
The member for Port Darwin was raising matters that were of concern to people in his electorate, who would have been looking forward to their concerns being raised. They would have been listening to, and they will read that, and they will also read the member for Johnston’s reply. There will be elements of that which will leave them uncomfortable, perhaps disturbed. If we follow the happy logic of the member for Johnston that, at the time the opposition and the Opposition Leader were raising concerns, they were not concerns; they were just plucked out of the air. They were concerns that were expressed by members of the community. We played our part, ran those arguments, put them, and held the government to account, as is our responsibility. I have to tell you, that has passed, we did our job at the time.
I know what Labor is thinking what we are meant to be doing is singing along and cheering and saying, ‘Oh, you blokes are doing a fantastic job’; and we just sit down and smile and give you three cheers every time you make a decision or announcement, or put out a glossy brochure - we put out one too, endorsing the glossy brochure and saying how great it is.
However, we had a job to do. I know you probably think this is a hard thing to do, but we have been through that, we did our job at that time. I have to tell you, the fact is, I quite like the waterfront. In fact, I take my family there when they are in town, and they are impressed. I like it too.
However, matters that were raised by the member for Port Darwin are legitimate. I do not think you spend enough time or energy, sadly, on addressing those concerns.
Going back to the odd and quite disturbing approach the member opposite takes to matters of public importance, I was thinking, we actually hate the waterfront. I remember the former member for Nhulunbuy used to tell us we hate the waterfront because we dared asked questions about it. Perhaps it is a debating tactic.
If we follow that same logic, the fact is that this Labor Party opposed the railway. We would not have a railway if the Labor Party had been in government because they opposed the railway - they never wanted the railway. They also opposed the Duck Pond down there which the commercial fishing industry makes great use of, and is important to their industry. They opposed the university. If they had been in the government, we would not have a university. That is right, dig back. They opposed Cullen Bay. If they had been in government, we would not have a Cullen Bay. In opposition, they opposed uranium mining; we would not have a uranium mining industry.
I remember, too, being in this Chamber, sitting over there, and the opposition to mandatory sentencing, which they mounted in opposition, now in government, quickly dismantled it. We see some evidence of the results of dismantling. There are plenty of mandatory sentencing regimes that are in place in fact, but the soft approach to sentencing and to law and order has sent a message that has resulted in a real problem, which leads me then to this matter of public importance.
The first point the member for Port Darwin raised is a very important one. We have two vessels containing tourists who are coming to Darwin with some anticipation, and first impressions are only able to be established on that first occasion, and they are the most important ones. So, as the member for Port Darwin described that first encounter - seeing aspects of our waterfront, some of it attractive and some far from being attractive - leads me to explore that notion. The Minister for Tourism then advised, as the member for Port Darwin described, of a further seven vessels arriving, all of them containing tourists. All of those tourists will come and they will gain an impression. The first impression, many times, will be their strongest impression. What they see, as correctly described by the member for Port Darwin, is something of an eyesore. There was an expectation there would be an improvement to what they see at that first landing. That is an important matter the member for Port Darwin raised.
I would like to extend that a little further. This is something the Territory government is directly responsible for. These visitors gain an impression of a community by those first encounters. The vessel berths, the passengers disembark and move up into the CBD. Sometimes what they see in the CBD is going to leave them with a very strong impression and, one, sadly, in many cases would be a negative one.
Before going further with that I will go to Townsville and Cairns. There were two major developments - those two communities compete with each other in many respects and they developed their waterfronts and changed the way the centre of their CBD, their city, looked. They were extremely attractive and had people visiting. I remember my first impressions of Townsville when they developed The Strand, and the water features in the middle of Cairns, were very strong and positive first impressions.
The issues around that was I noticed a vigilance against any antisocial behaviour by those who were protecting what is most valuable in a community - that first impression. There was a vigilant and very swift response to any antisocial behaviour - required to move on, move out of that place. You then have a strong impression established and it is secure and traders are confident to operate in that space and feel backed up.
We do not have the same level of vigilance here with this Labor administration which has not taken the necessary resolve to deal with antisocial behaviour which occupies our showcase places. Yes, the waterfront does look fine but there has always been that issue of connectivity; they will come here then they will go into the mall. There is not adequate control over our public space and what it looks like.
To illustrate the impression, the powerful effect of what may be encountered in our CBD has on someone’s first time in a place like this, I talk to those who gained their first impression of Alice Springs whilst driving coaches. I ask them to recount to me the conversations they overheard after they had their first visit. They cite antisocial behaviour; it is troubling for those who are unfamiliar with it. We seem to accommodate it, but going to another place where things are different and seeing things that you are not accustomed to does have a powerful effect. That is why Cairns and Townsville have gained a strong position, recognising they need to protect those store holders so they have the confidence to know that law and order issues which erode the tone of a community, particularly around the CBD, are under control and they are able to operate in that space.
Going back to Darwin I saw, whilst talking to a very influential visitor from Indonesia - sitting with him at the nice coffee shop in the Paspaley building; that new coffee shop on the corner of the mall. The Raintree Park area had just been – no, it was just before it had improved - it had not been completed and a gentleman behind the fellow I was talking to stood up and - excuse the language - shat in the mall in the middle of the day where people were walking around ...
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, I ask you to withdraw that, please.
Mr MILLS: I withdraw that and replace it with defecated in public in full view. For those who would think I might be drawing in other connotations, he was a hobo; a bloke who was occupying that space who seemed to spend his day there and who did not want to walk too far. There were many people around. There would have been people who saw that. I did not know what to do. I did not want to turn and draw attention to that because I was talking to someone who was facing me. I saw that in the mall.
Other people see other things in the mall. I am not in the mall all the time. Some people may feel it does not particularly matter to them because there is absolutely no consequence. In my first encounter in Townsville and Cairns, I spoke to all the people who had been to the new development and, if any visitor had seen something like that, it would have been a shocking and negative impression.
That is why the law and order issues and the presentation we have of our CBDs and our main living spaces in Alice Springs and in Darwin are absolutely critical. Particularly when the dollar is so high and tourists are making a very deliberate decision to come to our place and gain an impression, we have to ensure we get on top of law and order. This is a matter of public importance, taking up the first point of the member for Port Darwin: that first impression being what they see when they come close to the port. I am taking it that next step and saying this Labor government has failed miserably in its control of our public spaces, particularly those in our CBD, making sure that connectivity between the waterfront and the CBD is strong. It is clear you may have good buildings there, but you have not been able to control the public space and we, consequently, have some frightful images that leave a disturbing and powerful negative effect on people who have come here, and it needs to be improved.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I acknowledge this is a matter of public importance. I am concerned the member for Johnston has dealt with part of it, and there are other matters that have not been adequately addressed. I am sure they could be pursued at a later stage. I support the matter of public importance.
Discussion concluded.
ADJOURNMENT
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight, I have words of welcome. I welcome, on behalf of the Katherine community, the new 2012 arrivals at the RAAF Base at Tindal. It is especially nice to be able to welcome tonight some personnel and families for their second posting. We must have done something right for them to want to return. I am not surprised they have come back. It was a pleasure, just a couple of weeks ago, to speak to a lady who had returned to Tindal for her second posting, together with her husband.
The Tindal Air Base was built in the 1980s as a part of the federal government’s push to bring our defences and our Defence Forces closer to the north. The Northern Territory saw the rise of Tindal during those days. I remember those days quite well because I was posted at the police station at Maranboy in those early years, and had friends who were living and working at the Tindal Base in those fledgling years of our RAAF presence in Katherine. The base has, since that time, steadily grown. It is pleasing to see, not only the growth of personnel numbers, but also the growth of the infrastructure to support our Defence presence in the north.
The Defence members based at Tindal, and their families, numbering around 2000, really do contribute to the social fabric of our town. How could they not? If one were to look at the statistical figures, Tindal personnel and their families make up around 20% of the total population of Katherine. Their input helps to bring prosperity to Katherine, and their presence adds to the richness of our culture and the diversity of our society.
Apart from the valued work of our pilots, ground and support staff at Tindal, there are many partners, wives and husbands who take up employment in the town and bring with them a wealth of knowledge and experience and contribute significantly to our skills base. Our RAAF friends send their children to our schools with most favouring the Casuarina Street Primary School, which is an excellent school in Katherine and one I regularly visit.
I regularly speak to the senior Australian Defence Force officer at Tindal and we both agree on a desire for RAAF personnel and their families to become part of the Katherine community. This will enable them to integrate, to take part in the myriad of sporting activities on offer in Katherine, to make friends, to find their fit in the social fabric not to mention to visit the beautiful natural wonders of the Katherine region.
To our new arrivals at Tindal, which number a few hundred I say welcome, and in considering how you might become involved in our community, I implore you all, all the new people who come to Tindal, to leap in and enjoy the great things Katherine has to offer.
It has not been much of a Wet Season. We have had far less rain this year and perhaps it has been somewhat warmer than most Wets although these conditions are not unprecedented. Regardless of the quality of the Wet Season, life goes on and so does work. Regardless of the severity of the Wet Season, there will always be plenty to do for the hard-working linesmen and other frontline staff of the Power and Water Corporation.
Can you imagine, Madam Deputy Speaker, the phone rings at 7 pm just as you are sitting down to dinner? You are not called into the office; you are called out into a cracking thunderstorm, bucketing down with rain, lightning striking around you and having to contend with power lines carrying 22 000 volts. A couple of hours later you arrive home, have your dinner - or have the dinner that you could not have at seven o'clock - and you go to bed. The phone rings again at 1 am. Once again you get called out in the same conditions but you might have to drive from Katherine to Pine Creek, or to Larrimah, or further, to repair another line taken out by a lightning strike. You arrive home at 5 am to go to bed only to have to turn up for your rostered shift a few hours later. That is often the life of many of our frontline Power and Water staff. Then, sadly, the public are onto you because they lost power for a couple of hours and, apparently, it is all the fault of the frontline Power and Water staff.
I do not subscribe to that view. I have a very good understanding of how our power system works and the difficulties, the technical nuances of, for example, bringing the Katherine Power Station online. I know it is not as simple as flicking a switch but many Northern Territory power consumers do not understand the processes. Their criticism of our Power and Water staff is borne from a lack of understanding. I am happy to refute such criticism on behalf of those Power and Water frontline staff and I do so regularly.
I take this opportunity to recognise the hard and often dangerous work, and the barbs that are so often without justification thrown at Power and Water workers who are effectively putting their lives on the line every time they get into the basket of a cherry picker. I send my regards particularly to those staff who work in Katherine and I recognise the hard work they do. Not that they face any less danger than any other of the Power and Water staff who have this role, but they do it over vast tracts of the Territory. They have to travel as far north as Emerald Springs, south to Larrimah including Jilkminggan, Barunga, and Beswick to the east following the extent of transmission lines, and then into the desert country in the west, working in remote communities.
I hope the remainder of the Wet Season does not bring too much work with it for our Power and Water staff. I hope that the Wet Season does not herald conditions that would cause any of our Power and Water staff to come to any harm. I wish them a safe working environment, as safe as it can be under some of the conditions they have to contend with. In the meantime, I say to the Power and Water staff, particularly those in Katherine: ‘Keep up the good work; your work does not go unnoticed and is very much appreciated by those who understand the difficult environment in which you have to work and some of the issues around maintaining a robust power supply’.
However, the criticism you do hear from time to time that is justified is around the strategic maintenance of our Power and Water infrastructure. I know the Power and Water Corporation is in a great deal of debt. They have allocated priorities to parts of the Power and Water infrastructure that we do not often see, and still we are finding failing across the Territory. We must recognise that there is a strong need to have a robust program of strategic maintenance across our Power and Water infrastructure in the Northern Territory. That does not mean just responding to a downed power line, or a blown up insulator, or something like that. We know Power and Water staff get out and do that stuff, and there is never any question about replacing some of those items that get damaged during storms and other incidents that cause problems with our power supply.
I am talking about strategic maintenance, about having a program of replacing things that we know are getting old, that we know through experience and the technical information we are able to get, are going to fail. I see it. For example, I know the insulators on some of our lines get old with age and the weather, and the stresses they are under. I know they develop microcracks, just as one example. Those insulators with microcracks are more inclined to fail, so there must be some way of working around that with a strategic program to get those things replaced before they blow up or are destroyed by some weather event or something else.
I urge the minister in charge of the Power and Water Corporation to look behind the immediate maintenance issues we know our Power and Water workers do so well. We need to look for a more strategic approach to maintaining the infrastructure of Power and Water in the Northern Territory so that we can maintain a continuous and robust supply of electricity to our power and water consumers.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Deputy Speaker, I take this opportunity to thank John Strehlow. On Sunday 12 February, I had the honour, privilege and opportunity to launch his book in Adelaide at the Australian Lutheran College.
I put on record the speech and thank all those many people who attended. There were over 200 people. I take this opportunity to thank, Rev Dr Mike Semmler; President, Lutheran Church of Australia; Rev John Henderson; Principal; Australian Lutheran College; Pastor Paul Albrecht; Pastor Max Stollznow; Mr Moss Keller; Pastor James Winderlich; Mr Bob Ahrens; Dr Dean Zweck; Dr Jeff Silcock; Rev Robert Kempe; Dr Rolph Mayer; Dr Erich Renner; Dr Malcolm Bartsch; Dr Michael Hassold; Dr John Koch; Dr Maurice Schild; and Rev Noel Weiss. The member for Sanderson’s aunt and uncle were also there. I thank Ivan Christian, Colin Jericho, Val Petering and the President of Finke River Mission Board, Tim Stollznow.
It was a great event and I would love to say thank you again to John Strehlow. I will put on record the speech I made in Adelaide:
- I was intrigued when I first heard about this book, around the time of its launch in Alice Springs late last year.
- Firstly, because The Tale of Frieda Keysser is the result of 17 years of research and writing and is close to 1200 pages long. With numbers like these, it is obvious the author must have found a rich vein of historical information to mine. The same Strehlow passion and dedication that ran through his grandparents’ veins must run through the author’s veins as well.
Secondly, much of this tale revolves around the time that Carl Strehlow and Freida Keysser spent at the Hermannsburg, a community that I, too, spent time in while growing up and that I have an ongoing relationship with, both in my personal and professional life.
Since the start of this year, I have also had the opportunity to meet and speak with author, John Strehlow, the grandson of Carl Strehlow and Frieda Keysser. I must applaud John for the enormous amount of detailed research which has grown into his work.
This is the comprehensive story of Carl Strehlow and his wife Frieda Keysser, who came to Australia from Germany to work as Lutheran missionaries. Carl Strehlow arrived in Hermannsburg in 1894 to a place of disease, social decay and despair. At the time, Baldwin Spencer; anthropologist, author and acknowledged ‘world expert’ on the Arrernte; predicted that the Aboriginal people would not survive the next 100 years. By the time Carl Strehlow left Hermannsburg in 1922, 28 years later, the mission had been transformed into a thriving outpost.
The Strehlows were unique; these people from Germany stood out in a crowd. They strove for the best under very harsh circumstances. There was very little money or goods provided for the mission. Fruit, onions and even potatoes were considered ‘unnecessary luxuries’ by the church board and were often stricken from mission’s goods order. I note that Frieda despaired about the lack of value placed on the missionaries’ efforts when the board decided that they ‘could not allow apples in their order since they had hardly enough for the pigs and the freight was too dear’.
This was not an easy life which the missionaries chose to live. But for 28 years they lived side by side with the Arrernte and Luritja people. They all suffered extreme environmental conditions. There was drought, when the water from the Finke River turned smelly and salty. The cattle became skinny and the cows’ milk became sour. Numerous sheep died and the horses became too weak to work. Ticks killed the laying hens and the white ants were found eating away at the wooden crucifix.
And of course there was the heat. One Christmas Day was particularly memorable because it was 113 to 114 degrees in the shade and the candles on the Christmas tree melted and collapsed!
Carl and Frieda also experienced loneliness and homesickness, as well as separation from their first five children when the children returned them to Germany to obtain a proper education. Frieda, especially, felt the loss of her own social connections and found it often impossible to relate to a culture so different from her own.
Still along with the Arrernte and the Luritja people, the Strehlows stayed and felt the isolation perhaps most in the lack of medical assistance. They had mouth ulcers from vitamin deficiencies, toothache, eye infections, and an epidemic of measles. And of course, in the end, Carl Strehlow died at Horseshoe Bend, after a slow and difficult journey to try to reach medical help.
After 28 years of daily life with the Arrernte and the Luritja, the Strehlows were no longer outsiders. Here lies the sharp difference between the views of the anthropologists or educated ‘experts’ of the time and the work of the missionaries, accurately defined by John Strehlow. From the majority of cases known to me in the Western Desert and my own personal experience, I relate anthropologists to helicopters, quickly landing and taking off in communities, spending little to no time actually living with Aboriginal people. The knowledge of these so-called experts were limited and biased by their preconceptions. However, it has not been uncommon for their fabrications to be accepted as truth because there had been few able to challenge them.
On the whole, anthropologists of yesterday and today, often treat Aboriginal people as objects to be studied. Of central importance to their work is keeping Aboriginal people separate and different, ‘unspoiled’ by exposure to modern ways. Even today, there are people who want Aboriginal people to remain in the Stone Age. Anthropology had nothing to offer as a vision for the future of Hermannsburg because it was based on the accepted fact that there was no future for Aboriginal people.
Meanwhile, Carl and Frieda and the missionaries dedicated themselves to reducing infant mortality, the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, blood feuds and violence. It is not overstating the situation to say that many Central Australian and Aboriginal people are here today because of the work the missionaries did in those early years. The missions were crucial to keeping the peace and promoting modern health practices.
The missionaries lived closely with Aboriginal people, as well as bringing six healthy children of their own into the world at Hermannsburg. They recognised the common humanity of the Arrernte and Luritja and wanted to share their world. The missionaries were not out to destroy Aboriginality, but to discover how separate worlds could best come together. Unfortunately, we are still arguing about this goal against Central Australia today. Much of the wisdom gained through the early interaction between missionaries and Aboriginal people has been disregarded in the ensuing years.
I have stated before that this book provides a lesson for anthropologists, past and present. Anthropologists must be careful about the assumptions they make, drawn from their own preconceived notions and biases. Their peers are often the only ones to review their work, yet their peers may have no specific knowledge themselves of a particular people or culture.
This book calls into question much that has been written earlier about Hermannsburg. For many years missionaries in Central Australia have been the subject of contempt and a campaign of blatant propaganda and misconceptions. For me, this tale rings true with what I knew from my own childhood. I am the product of grandparents who lived with the missionaries, and for that I am thankful. The missionaries left us with our culture, songs and history intact. They gave us the opportunity to understand and learn about the new world with which we had only recently come into contact. The missionaries gave us jobs and assisted us to travel for work, picking fruit and sheering sheep. They also set up industries like the tannery at Hermannsburg. They gave us hope through faith, and many of us remain strong Lutherans today.
People who have only lived with Arrernte or Luritja for a few years cannot understand the connections between Arrernte and the missionaries. But for those of us who grew up within the missionary history in Central Australia, there is never a bad word said about the missionaries. We are still grateful for the opportunities they gave us.
As I said, I was really happy to see Pastor Paul Albrecht and Ivan Christian, Colin Jericho, Pastor Stollznow and Val Petering. Val’s father, Pastor Petering was the pastor at Papunya and, of course, Pastor Kalleskeat Areyonga.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Deputy Speaker, I congratulate the member for Macdonnell on what was a very moving speech - well done. She is a great ambassador for Central Australia, a true Indigenous representative.
Tonight, I talk about crime in Gillen again. Last week in parliament, I talked about the very high incidence of crime in Gillen, which is a part of the Araluen electorate. I want to share a story of what happened to me on Friday when I returned to Alice Springs. I got off the plane at about 9.30 am, rang my electorate officer, Carly, who informed me she had received several very distressing telephone calls from a couple who reside in a street in Gillen. They had been broken into the day before, which was on the Thursday. I dropped off my gear and quickly made my way to their home.
What I found was two middle aged people - a man and a woman - who have lived in their home in Gillen for 28 years. They are a very well-known couple in Alice Springs, and they have lived their entire married life in this home - a real home, not just a house but where they raised their family. They had renovated it, cared for it, and it is, indeed, a beautiful home. They were very distressed - the woman holding back the tears, the man being quite courageous. They told me this was the third time they had been broken into in the last 15 months.
They showed me around their home. I said to them: ‘I have not come to inspect the damage. I have not come to see anything. I have really just come to find out if you are okay’. They insisted on showing me around their home. In every room in their home, they had their belongings strewn around the place. Their lifelong possessions were everywhere. The people who had broken in had come through a side window. These people had Crimsafe and security screens. They had taken all the advice available on crime prevention through design. They had the right fence; they regularly came home during the day to check on their premises; they had ticked all the boxes in terms of security.
However, unlike any other day, they had not gone home during the day. They returned home at 5 pm or thereabouts after they had finished work and yes, they had been broken into. It was a very distressing scene to see this couple walking around their home, which had been tainted. A few things had been stolen, not much had been broken, but they had been invaded.
I raise this tonight because it is a sign that crime is continuing in Alice Springs. I heard, anecdotally, that this particular incident was one of about four that had happened that day in Gillen. Ironically, two or three weeks before, I had doorknocked that street and an adjacent street which had had several break-ins on that same day and those residents told me that things had been pretty good of late.
I want to let the government of the Northern Territory know that things in Gillen are still the same. People are still being broken into, and primarily alcohol is being stolen. That, I can only conclude, is partly, if not completely, due to the alcohol restrictions imposed on all residents of the Northern Territory but particularly Alice Springs, which has been targeted by this government.
Second, I would like to talk very briefly on the cost of living and lifestyle in Alice Springs. When you talk about lifestyle and the cost of living in Alice Springs, you can narrow this whole issue down to several main factors. One of them is transport. One of the things that affects our lives in Alice Springs is that we only have one passenger airline servicing our town. Our lives are completely affected by how this airline, Qantas - and I thank God that we have Qantas - schedule planes coming in and out of Alice Springs.
As a member of parliament, my life is truly shaped, as are the lives of the other members of parliament, the members for Greatorex, Braitling, and Macdonnell, around the Qantas timetable. More importantly, people in Alice Springs are exceedingly reliant on one airline to take us to cities and towns around Australia and indeed, around the world, and it comes at quite an expense. If you want to travel for example, as a family of four to Brisbane, Melbourne or Adelaide you are looking at a minimum of around $600 for a return ticket. That takes the travel component immediately up to around $2500 just to get from Alice Springs to the city of your choice.
The cost of living in Alice Springs is determined by the fact that we are so reliant on a very expensive airline. Indeed, when things go wrong in our lives, for example, when our elderly parents become ill, or when people pass away, we are at the mercy of this airline and we have to pay top dollar. There is no choice in Alice Springs when it comes to how we get from Alice Springs to Perth if there is a family emergency.
I raise this tonight because the cost of living in the Northern Territory is high, and in Alice Springs, it is even higher perhaps than in Darwin because we have no choice when it comes to passenger airlines. It is important for the Northern Territory government continue to work hard to get another airline into Alice Springs so the cost of living for people in Alice Springs and Central Australia can be reduced.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will touch on a few things. First, I will start with crime. It was good to hear the member for Araluen raise the terrible incident at Gillen in her electorate of Araluen. It is interesting, coming here after the crime spree that Labor said never was, the cracks that it papered over at Christmas time in Alice Springs. When they closed down the media unit of police in Alice Springs to put it in Darwin, they did not issue a media release or tell people what was really going on. We heard of a terrible break and enter, and that is on top of all the other crime that is happening now. There were vehicles targeted in Ochre Court; Woods Terrace - illegally entered; Cromwell Drive - broken into with intruders in the house; and a man arrested for kicking a woman and hitting her with a tyre lever in Alice Springs. Just today, we see an ambulance officer assaulted in Elliott Street; I am sure the minister for Housing would know Elliott Street,
I have written to the minister on many occasions about this and I have spoken about it in parliament ad nauseam. I have asked the minister for Housing to pay attention to Elliott Street and put in place some principles to remove the density of public housing in that street. The three complexes of public housing in Elliott Street, together with every other house just about being public housing, is creating significant problems in the whole area in Northside. The Centre Bush Bus drops people off from out of town at the Elliott Street units on a regular basis, just dumps people out, causing more overcrowding and more urban drift. It is a recipe for disaster. I know the government – well, I know the minister for Housing used to be interested, but on his retirement bed I do not think he seems to care anymore. This is a significant problem and no action has been taken. I have called for a task force to be implemented; a task force of police, public housing, council, Centrelink, Centre Bush Bus - get out there and start solving the problems. You have not responded yet, and I do not expect you will.
This terrible assault on a public officer, that being an ambulance officer, a 40-year-old St John Ambulance Paramedic today is appalling, and the full force of the law should come down on those criminals who attacked the ambulance officer.
It is bad enough that kids are running around the street all hours of the night, that women are being beaten, that there is loud music and antisocial behaviour, people stealing cars, graffiti, burn-outs, and all the stuff that goes on every night in Elliott Street. It is bad enough that it continues, but then we have ambulance officers being assaulted whilst responding to injured people. It is an absolute disgrace. These things will continue to happen. I know that many of the staff in parliament and the members of government must get sick of the Alice Springs members banging on about law and order.
It is shame that the members of parliament from other areas of the Territory who have the same problems do not get up and talk about them. The government members, the member for Barkly, who has the same crime problems in Tennant Creek, will not talk about it, or about problems in Borroloola, Ali Curung, Elliott and Alpurrurulam. He will not talk about those from a Barkly perspective. I can tell you that the people in his electorate are unhappy. And you will find that all the urban centres, or the regional centres of an urban nature in the Northern Territory, are coming under the same pressure.
Palmerston, Darwin and the northern suburbs, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs are all the same. They are suffering the influx of urban drift - people coming from the bush into town. Those people are free to come and go as they please, but they are coming in for a number of reasons. They are coming in because of a lack of development, particularly a lack of support for people who want to live on their community, develop their communities, and develop the regions so there are jobs so people can live there.
No, the federal Labor government and the Territory Labor government are not supporting economic development. They do not have a policy for homelands. They have run this shire implementation model, which is seen as toxic by many people across the Territory. People are being forced off their country and into regional centres, including Darwin and the northern suburbs. Overcrowding and homelessness, which leads to antisocial behaviour, and alcohol consumption and criminal activity is what is driving the law and order problems.
This is assimilation by stealth by Labor, Territory and federal, through lack of investment and economic development in the regions - inertia and driving urban drift into our centres. When you walk the streets of Parap, when you are in Johnston, when you are in Karama, Alice Springs, Katherine and Tennant Creek, they are full to capacity. There are not enough houses for people to live in and that is driving antisocial behaviour and lawlessness.
That is why the Country Liberals support regional development and removing this policy of shires and the negative effects of shires - an underfunded local government model. That is why we support homelands and outstations. That is why we support economic development. That is why our criticism of the federal Labor government from the intervention has been about its lack of progress on developing business and developing jobs and getting people off welfare. That is why we criticise the Territory Labor government for not supporting development in these regions and real reforms. That is how you have change.
No, Labor, at the Territory and federal level, continue this assimilation model of moving people off their country and into our towns of the Northern Territory - towns which cannot cope through capacity restraints of housing and social housing and we see homelessness, overcrowding, antisocial behaviour, drunkenness and crime that every mum and dad in the Northern Territory is sick of. You have it wrong on both fronts. That is why your law and order is failing, and that is why people are sick of having to move off their own country.
I also raise the issue of container deposit legislation. I promised a lady at the markets on Sunday I would. We all support container deposit legislation. Despite what the minister for Natural Resources says, the Country Liberals will not be revoking the CDL but will be looking for more appropriate models to ensure consumers are not hit with inflationary pressures through the cost of cans.
I still have not had the question answered of why a carton of beer goes up by more than $10 when you only get $2.40 back. That is $7.60 per carton inflationary pressure. There are plenty of families across the Territory who cannot afford that - why it costs $57.99 for a 30 block of VB at the Northside shops. It is just not right.
Our Independent member, our Rob Oakeshott of the Northern Territory, likes to roll his eyes and think this is pedantic stuff. It is not! These are inflationary pressures. This is a bad model you were involved in and put in place. The fact that you cannot take a can purchased on 2 January 2012 - why can you not return a can bought on 2 January 2012 ...
Mr Wood interjecting.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr GILES: ... that is absolutely disgraceful! You want to clean up the Territory - there are cans bought on 2 January but: ‘Oh, no, you cannot bring those here’. That is despite the allegation that the government instructed retailers to put their prices up before so people in the Territory would not feel the pinch at the introduction of this on 3 January.
Well, people are feeling the pinch. You cannot clean up all those empty cans but you have all these inflationary pressures that impact on the cost of living. This goes on top of the cost of grocery prices, which are now at a heightened level because of the failures of the government to put in flood mitigation regulation approaches for the rail. Now we are seeing a 30% increase in many groceries in the Northern Territory. We are seeing the cost of housing and land go through the roof. Now, we see the CDL stuff on top of that. We have the carbon tax coming in, and the mining resources rent tax coming in. All these taxes are all inflationary.
Labor just washes over them as if it does not mean anything to anyone. However, when you put the CDL on top of it, which is more than the carbon tax - the CDL is more than the carbon tax - substantially more - but no one seems to care. For the mums and dads of the Northern Territory who are now having to pay an extra $10 a carton to get $2.40 back for their recycling is not fair, and is not on. You are not going to clean up the Territory of all its cans and rubbish if you cannot take anything in that was bought on 2 January, because the rules say 3 January. I challenge the minister for Natural Resources and the Environment: why is it that a carton of beer goes up by $10, but you only get back $2.40 under the CDL legislation?
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, the member for Braitling should ask the retailer – it is as simple as that - instead of making it up as he goes along.
Be that as it may, I thought I would talk about the agreement that has been raised today. I will go through the agreement - part of it - because there are quite a number of items in the agreement. The agreement has around 43 different items. Of those 43 items, 23 have been completed, 14 are still active, and six are ongoing. I thought I would go through, as written in the original agreement, and work my way through some of the matters that were raised in the agreement.
The first one was to enact legislation to establish a Council of Territory Cooperation. In October 2009, the Council of Territory Cooperation, called the CTC, was established to examine government decision-making in consultation with opposition and other members of the Legislative Assembly. The CTC is comprised of up to six members, including two government members, two opposition members and, at least one Independent member, with the Independent member for Nelson - that is me - appointed as chair.
The CTC’s purpose is:
to facilitate greater levels of collaboration in the governance of the Northern Territory;
The committee has been investigating SIHIP, local government reform, homelands, outstation policy and growth towns. The committee has also inquired into and reported on issues that are important to the public. The committee also has self-referencing powers, which means it can examine any issues facing the Territory without direction from the parliament. So far, it has used the self-referencing powers to inquire into the 2009 power shortages in the NT - that is the Weddell Power Station specifically - crime reporting statistics - or domestic violence more specifically - and child protection reforms and the public guardian.
It should be noted that the CLP did leave the CTC, but came back in relation to the issue of the power shortages and the crime reporting statistics, and also for the animal welfare governance subcommittee. The animal welfare governance subcommittee inquired into animal welfare governance during 2011, with some emphasis on the Mataranka cattle incident. I should say this also broke new ground, with the Minister for Local Government being allowed to be questioned. That was after the Chief Minister allowed ministers to be questioned by the CTC.
There was the reform of Question Time, something that was well and truly needed, and which has come out of the agreement. Questions now shall be succinct, concise, and direct, and shall not exceed one minute. I am not sure they were always succinct, concise, and direct, but at least they go to one minute. The answer of each question shall not exceed three minutes. The Leader of the Opposition may ask one supplementary question in each Question Time, which shall not exceed 30 seconds, and the answering of each supplementary question shall not exceed one minute. An answer shall be succinct, concise, and directly relevant to the question.
The reply to a written question on the Written Question Paper shall be given by delivering the same to the Clerk. A copy shall be supplied to the member who has asked the question, and the question and reply shall be printed in the Written Question Paper and in the Parliamentary Record. The minister should respond to a written question within 30 days of receipt by the minister. If the minister does not answer a written question asked by a member within 30 days of asking that question, the minister is to provide an explanation to the member asking that question.
Next was the dispensing of ministerial reports which were in use in previous sittings. The Standing Orders Committee Third Report to the Assembly was debated and noted in the parliament on 26 November 2009, together with resolutions of the Assembly to adopt recommendations of the Standing Orders Committee Report. Some of those I have just mentioned. One I did not mention was that the standing orders be amended to provide that general business be given precedence over government business on each Wednesday of each sitting week from 5.30 pm to 9 pm commencing from the first sitting period of 2010. That happens now and the opposition and the Independent take advantage of that increase in the time set aside for general business - again, another reform.
There was also an agreement for a review of the Estimates Committee hearing process including scheduling, length of time of ministers’ appearances, length of questions and a limited number of questions being asked of all agencies being submitted as written questions distributed to the agencies with agencies tabling the answers. The review of the Estimates Committee hearing process was to commence in 2010.
There were also some more notes: amendment to Standing Order 77 to extend the speech time limit on the adjournment debate to 10 minutes for each member dated Monday, 12 October 2009. It was changed to 5 minutes, which most people thought was just far too short. There was also amendment to Standing Order 41A(e) to extend the time for the automatic adjournment of the Assembly on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays to 10.30 pm. The Standing Orders Committee also agreed that an additional sitting week be included in the sittings schedule instead of Monday sitting days in February, August and October.
Another item was that the government’s reports be available under freedom of information, free of charge. This was approved under government regulations, 24 February 2010. There was also a requirement to establish a review panel to review the location of the prison. I was interested in hearing what the member for Fong Lim had to say about this today. The review panel looked at the location of the new prison, prison camps and work camps. I have always supported a new prison because the present one is just a dark hole. I pushed strongly for the new prison to be built on the existing site, or at Berrimah Farm. If you read Hansard that was my original belief of where it should go. After a number of meetings with this review panel, and the meetings I had were with experts who dealt with prison design and other factors involved in prisons and the running of prisons, I was convinced that a new prison could go on neither of those sites and the best site is where it is today.
I am happy to go through with anyone who has the time, the reasons why the new prison could not go on the existing site because there are many reasons. It was complex and I attended a number of meetings to try to convince the panel that it was a better place. I simply had to listen to reason rather than just pretend it could actually happen. When you have experts tell you the facts why a site is no good, it is either a very brave or a foolish politician who would ignore that advice.
The next one was about examining alternative options to one large prison and investigate prison farms for Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine and Darwin. This part of the agreement was to look at alternatives to a big prison such as prison farms and work camps. There is now a work camp at Tennant Creek. There are plans for a work camp and a prison farm at Katherine. I am not a great fan of big prisons. However, when the experts show you that there is an increase in prison population, you realise no matter what you do, no matter what programs you put in place to try to reduce the number of prisoners entering our prison system, it will take quite a few years before you change that.
The statistics and the figures show that we are likely to reach 1000 in a few years time. I hope that is not the case, but if you are going to reach that number, you have to have somewhere to hold those prisoners. Hopefully, they will not stay in that prison but be taken to places like the prison farm at Katherine or work camps. I also hope there will be a vegetable farm within the new prison, and that can be expanded to a full farm.
The caravan park legislation passed today in parliament will require the goodwill of owners to set up caravan park agreements, but that is better than it was before. The important bit is the amendments which give some breathing space to residents if, for whatever reason, a park closes down. I will always remember what happened to the residents of Sundowner Caravan Park.
When it was raised today in parliament about what had happened to vendor disclosure – yes, I had been wondering what had happened to it, as it had been passed in this parliament. However, it has been delayed because of problems getting an agreement with the industry, that is, the real estate industry and associated people, about the standard form of contract which will incorporate the legislation. Hopefully, the mention of this in parliament today will make those involved in fixing up this contract get a move on.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will speak on two things. Today, the first thing I want to do is correct the record in a small way. During the MPI, I referred to the demountables that are at the waterfront as the sales office. Clearly that is not correct, so I want to correct the record. The minister correctly identified the sales office, and the demountables at the waterfront are not the sales office. I presume they would be the construction office or whatever else at some point in the future. The demountables, nevertheless, are there, but I think that whilst a small correction is worthwhile doing, because I do believe in trying to be as thorough as I possibly can. So I correct the record formally in relation to that, and if anything flows from that, then I am a big boy, and I will cop it on the chin.
I also rise tonight to comment on the media release of today from the Police Association relating to ‘one punch’ legislation. This was the legislation voted down by this government despite the fact that the eyes of the widow of Sergeant Brett Meredith were cast upon them, and I do recall that vote. Whilst the government was dividing against the wishes of the widow, Amy Meredith, the fact was that not one of them could bring themselves to look at her while they were doing it. I note that the Police Association today has decided to throw their support behind the concept of ‘one punch’ homicide. I welcome the comments made by the association President, Vince Kelly, and I am grateful to the association for their support for this commonsense legislation.
The government has proven itself churlish and resistant to this legislation for no other reason than, I suspect, the political advantage of having a point of difference with the Country Liberals. What I say to government is, very well, if you want to have a point of difference, have a point of difference, but find points of difference which are not going to upset so many Territorians. I know that many police officers were disappointed, and I know many other people in the community were disappointed when the government chose to take their belligerent point of view in relation to this particular legislative instrument. Despite the rather demeaning comments by government in relation to my motives and the motives of others of bringing this legislation into this House, the fact remains that this is a good law. It exists in other jurisdictions, and there is no reason why it should not exist in this jurisdiction but for this government’s intransigence when it comes to it.
I am revisiting the legislative instrument and I hope that in the near future I will be able to give notice of a similar legislative instrument, not the same, that will have a similar effect to what was sought the last time around. There is growing public support behind this legislative instrument. I know the widow of Sergeant Brett Meredith, Sergeant Amy Meredith, is a strident campaigner for the introduction of this sort of law. I have spoken to her on numerous occasions in the past; indeed, I spoke to her this evening about this particular issue. I am proud to announce that I have her support in pursuing this matter through this Legislative Assembly again. It is a worthwhile thing to do and I would be very grateful if the government could be less intransigent on this occasion than they were the last time around.
They are not garnering public support around this issue; they do not have public support with their resistance to this issue. King hits in pubs should not in any way be mitigated by the issues that surround the law of manslaughter in relation to acts of negligence and intent.
I will be a proud Attorney-General should we win the next Territory election and ensure this legislation becomes law of the Northern Territory. If it does not on the introduction of the legislation, which I hope to do soon - if the government continues to remain implacable in its resistance to it, should there be a change of government there will be a change of law in relation to this legislative instrument. The government will receive a substantial submission from the Police Association into this matter, and I urge the government to cast a far more benevolent eye upon that submission than they have on this legislation up to this point.
The law and order problems of the Northern Territory have done nothing but climb under this government. The victimisation rates we saw released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics today demonstrate the high levels of crime and victimisation in our community. If you compare them to the Australian average and across some other jurisdictions, we are in the stratosphere. Whilst the government may take the position these victimisation rates have improved slightly - up or down - it is like something in the stratosphere gaining or losing a couple of hundred feet of altitude when we should be flying in the stratosphere if not, ideally, at sea level. Most other jurisdictions are in the troposphere; however, the government of the Northern Territory has overseen a violence against the person rate which is simply borderline astronomical.
The signal this government sends saying they are tough on crime is not reflected in the legislative instruments they bring before this House. When you bring legislative instruments into this House that are tough on crime, they resist it stridently.
I commit myself, should I become the Attorney-General of the Northern Territory, to ensuring the legislative instruments that are required will be in place to give the community comfort that, should they become the victim of a crime, they will know there will be a responsive legislative structure in place for their needs as victims. That legislative structure will have the interest of the victims at heart. So it is with the one punch legislation, and so it will be with any number of other legislative instruments should the Country Liberals form government.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I want to talk about Stronger Futures. Last week in adjournment, the member for Macdonnell spoke about concerns of the Mt Liebig store in having being named adversely in a submission to the Senate inquiry into Stronger Futures, by consultant company, Remote Retail Services. It was pleasing to learn that there had been a written apology by Remote Retail Services to the Mt Liebig store and an undertaking that the reference would be removed from the submission.
Nonetheless, I was completely gobsmacked to hear the member for Macdonnell say:
- The Stronger Futures legislation will do nothing to make these places and their stores better, only further entrench and engender FaHCSIA’s power and the disempowerment of Aboriginal people. Their actions are a hindrance, not a help.
Some things never cease to amaze me about the member for Macdonnell, her awesome cheekiness, and, equally, her complete disregard for her own appalling record, in this case in relation to community stores.
One of the major policy objectives for Stronger Futures relates to stores on Aboriginal communities, both in governance and food security. There will be a licensing system for stores based on achieving these important objectives. Clause 46 of the act proposes the matters which must be considered when determining whether to grant a licence to a community store. One of the major factors in this consideration is:
- ... the store’s business structure, governance practices and employment practices;
Given their opposition to Stronger Futures, and any regulation of remote stores, the question for the CLP is how they would achieve adequate standards for food security and governance.
The CLP’s position on Stronger Futures unravels when one looks at the appalling record of the member for Macdonnell in relation to these issues, catalogued in the Walkley Award-winning book King Brown Country written by Russell Skelton. Given this history, her opposition to Stronger Futures comes as no surprise. Prior to the publication of this book, when the member for Macdonnell was on this side of the House and under attack from the CLP opposition, she told us these were made-up stories with no basis in truth. That is why we defended her; we believed her.
However, now we see the content of this book, published in 2010, which has never been challenged by the member for Macdonnell, either legally or in the public domain, including this parliament. In this context, we must conclude the contents of this book are true and accurate, showing the member for Macdonnell in her true light.
One of the issues raised by Skelton in his book relates to a situation that Stronger Futures aims to stop; namely, the way in which funds generated by the Papunya community store were scandalously misused. According to Skelton, this occurred when the member for Macdonnell was Town Clerk. Skelton described how:
- … a legal loophole existed that made it possible for community funds to be squandered without serious scrutiny, or it seemed, consequences.
That quote is on page 63. This contemptible misuse of funds, which Stronger Futures aims to stop, was called ‘Motor Car Dreaming; described as:
- … an administrative device where store profits were systematically siphoned off to buy motor vehicles for a chosen few.
The store manager at Papunya at the time, Mr John Verek, described it as follows:
- The money spent on cars would have been in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. A waste, a fortune squandered on a minority. Even if it were true that the cars bought were to be shared by all the community, which it was not, I think it is sad to think that it could have been spent more wisely.
According to King Brown Country this debased form of governance - which Stronger Futures aims to stop - including the actual distribution of motor vehicles, was reportedly overseen by the member for Macdonnell herself. To quote from King Brown Country:
- Anderson as clerk presided over the gathering …
This was despite warnings from Mr Peter Vroom the council bookkeeper who would routinely point out:
- … it was illegal for money to be spent on individuals.
- Alison always had an answer ...
Madam Deputy Speaker, the opposition opposes any action to correct the governance of such stores. I ask them to consider the suffering of the people who depend on these stores in remote regions. In the case of Papunya store, a significant proportion of the money came from price gouging. I quote from King Brown Country page 65:
- There were no regulations in the Territory to prevent price gouging…
...
Verek said he once tried, at Vroom’s suggestion, to lower store prices, but Anderson flatly rejected the idea, saying it was not what the majority of the councillors wanted. Anderson and Hanley avoided the store, doing most of their shopping in Alice Springs, yet Verek said they benefitted from the profits via - amongst other prizes - a $35 000 Toyota Land Cruiser.
I am not saying this behaviour is dishonest in the legal sense, but it is despicable. Here is someone who has set herself up as a defender, a champion, a saviour of Indigenous rights. However, in King Brown Country, we learn that she insisted on price gouging in that remote store, ripping off needy, vulnerable Indigenous people on necessities like food, so she could benefit personally with the car she used to shop elsewhere for herself. One also has to ask whether Commonwealth tax was paid on that vehicle.
Another compelling reason why the Commonwealth should have the power to stop this sort of debauched governance of a community store is also evident on page 47. This is about another store manager in Papunya, Mr Byerley:
- … he clashed with Anderson over store trading hours. Byerley said Anderson wanted him to close the store on weekends so it did not interfere with a small business she operated from her house. He refused, arguing that residents were entitled to be able to buy food and vegetables over the weekend, and that he was contractually obliged to reverse the substantial losses he had inherited.
It says later that he was given 24 hours to leave the community. This represents a massive conflict of interest and debauched governance, the sort that would deserve close scrutiny as part of the measures proposed in Stronger Futures.
Important questions must now be asked in relation to the untenable policy position of the CLP in relation to Stronger Futures, particularly the Opposition Leader. Over the past few months, we have heard the CLP argue against any action to improve the governance of community stores. Do they condone the reported role of the member for Macdonnell and others chronicled in King Brown Country? In particular the debauched governance of the Papunya store, price gouging, individuals, including the member for Macdonnell personally profiteering with a vehicle through ‘Motor Car Dreaming’, incredible conflicts of interest including prohibiting the store from operating on weekends because it competed with her personal business, and last, the repugnant face of bullying towards employees?
Does the Leader of the Opposition condone this behaviour? Is the Leader of the Opposition prepared to defend the member for Macdonnell publicly against the damaging material in King Brown Country?
If the Leader of the Opposition is not willing to publicly defend the member for Macdonnell who has not rebutted these allegations, either in court, in the media or in this parliament, he obviously believes the contents of King Brown Country. In that case, how can the Leader of the Opposition maintain his policy position of opposition to Stronger Futures, given the picture of debauched governance of the Papunya store? How can the Leader of the Opposition allow the member for Macdonnell to continue as shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Indigenous Policy? How could the Leader of the Opposition even contemplate making her a minister in any government he might lead? He needs to assure Territorians that he never will.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016