2013-11-27
Madam Speaker Purick took the Chair at 10 am.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I seek a leave of absence for minister Conlan, Minister for Tourism, who is on ministerial duties. Mr Tollner will be taking any questions in relation to Mr Conlan’s portfolios.
Leave granted.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, yesterday during Question Time, four members of this parliament were put on a warning. I stress that being put on a warning is not an accolade; it is a disgrace and we need to bear that in mind when we conduct ourselves in this Chamber. Many people watch these sittings and they take away from the sittings how our parliamentarians behave. I reiterate at the beginning of this Question Time, be very careful because bad behaviour will not be tolerated.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, I move that this House censures the Chief Minister, Treasurer and Minister for Education for the disastrous cuts they are making to our education system.
We condemn the Chief Minister, Treasurer and Minister for Education for:
failing Territorians in the most basic duty they have to deliver a sound education to Territorians through providing appropriate resources
consistently lying about the sheer extent of the teacher and support staff cuts
Education in the Northern Territory is in crisis. We have known that for months, and the only sensible thing to do, Minister for Education, Treasurer and Chief Minister, is to stop the cuts now.
It is not just me saying this; hundreds of teachers who have taken industrial action in recent weeks oppose the CLP government’s drastic cuts. Teachers, parents and our community have rallied again outside parliament today and have joined us in the gallery. Now is not the time to be cutting teacher numbersand support services in our schools.
We know the Northern Territory faces big challenges in the future. Teachers know that, parents know that and the minister knows that. The Minister for Education has said:
Minister, you are wrong, wrong, wrong! Investment in education delivers better educational outcomes. The 2011 Census showed more young Australians are completing Year 12 or equivalent non-school qualifications in the Northern Territory.
Proportions vary considerably across the states and territories and there is still a great deal of work to do, but we had a large increase – from 53% of 20 to 24-year olds in 2001 up to 63% in 2011. How can you say our system is not improving?
This is the minister who said teachers have ‘plenty of down time’ as an excuse to cut teacher numbers. This proves the Minister for Education is an unsuitable champion of the Northern Territory education system; he has no idea.
No one likes to see strike action, including teachers. They care most about their students. All they want is to be in their classrooms teaching, well supported and well resourced. The teachers’ exemption of exams from the industrial action and minimised disruption to kids represents this.
In contrast, while industrial action has been under way, instead of trying to resolve the dispute the Minister for Education has inflamed the situation. The minister has said:
How very wrong the minister has it. The Australian Education Union Northern Territory Branch has been very clear on what this industrial action is about. The union has been clear that teachers are taking industrial action and are sacrificing their wages in order to hold your bad government to account.
The union has said:
He does not get it. He is not aware of what is going on.
More recently, it has become clear the Minister for Education is bungling this. His failure to resolve the dispute has meant the government has rolled out the big guns – the Minister for Public Employment – to inflame the situation even more. He has said:
It is extremely disappointing that it seems neither the Minister for Education or the Minister for Public Employment have bothered to read the union’s log of claims. The log of claims was prepared in the context of the decision of the CLP government to instruct the department to change the long-standing school staffing formula. The CLP’s decision was taken without consultation with the union or teachers, without considering the impacts across secondary education and what it will cause.
The staffing formula is important because it is a factor in determining the conditions under which all teachers operate. I am amazed the Minister for Education and the Minister for Public Employment do not get this point and continue to mislead Territorians on what this industrial action is about.
Ministers are bungling this industrial dispute and looking increasingly confused. The union has been clear that teachers are taking this industrial action, sacrificing their wages, to hold the government to account. Funding in education matters, and what you are doing is changing our education system for the worse.
What type of government does not invest in children or their education? What type of Cabinet can watch decisions to cut teachers and support staff numbers in schools? What sort of Minister for Education promotes education cuts? What sort of Chief Minister and Treasurer do we have that pursue these savage education cuts? The minister seems to think it is possible to trade off savings from cutting teacher numbers and increasing class sizes against increased cost of living pressures – increased cost of living pressures made by your government and decisions in Cabinet to raise power and water tariffs. It defies common sense that, somehow, reducing funding will make a positive difference.
The Minister for Education has said the Territory has the best resourced schools in the nation but has the worst results. His solution seems to be that moving to having the worst resourced schools in the nation will somehow magically deliver the best results. There is zero evidence that supports this claim.
Recently, Brian Gleeson, Coordinator General for Remote Indigenous Services, said in relation to education:
In this parliament, my colleagues and I have spoken out about these cuts numerous times. We are passionate. There are also members on the opposite side who have spoken out about these cuts because they are wrong. The member for Namatjira spoke out about these cuts saying:
The member agreed that support roles are important too:
The member has also spoken about the impacts in her neighbouring electorate of Stuart:
That was from the member for Namatjira, your own side, minister. Chief Minister, what will it take for you to listen?
The government’s figures show a loss of 1.26 teacher positions in 2013 and a further loss in 2014. However, the Minister for Education responded by saying:
This is just one school, one example of many.
Minister, you need to clearly show us teacher and support staff numbers for last year, this year and next year. Break them down so we can clearly see what is happening in our schools. This is the number one question that school councils, parents and teachers have raised with me. The member for Goyder spoke out and was contradicted by the Minister for Education. Who should we believe? The member for Daly claimed victory in relation to one of his local schools, but we are yet to hear from you, minister, anything about this. This is what we mean; we hear conflicting messages.
The split within the CLP is there for all to see. The minister is looking after the member for Namatjira but said no to rolling back cuts in the rural areas. It is chaos. Minister, you need to support every Territory student in every Territory school. The Palmerston-based members have been silent, including the member for Blain, a former educator. I wonder why they have not been on the phone speaking to the Minister for Education about the impacts of the CLP’s cuts in Palmerston?
Rosebery Middle School Council wrote to the Minister for Education on 20 October saying:
Minister, I do not know what it takes. This a letter from a school council neighbouring your electorate, saying this government appears hell-bent on making cuts that will have a lasting negative impact on our children’s education.
The council went on to say:
The Rosebery School Council went on to say:
Minister, why are you not attending school council meetings? Why are you not visiting schools? I have been to numerous schools in the past weeks and have heard directly from parents, teachers and principals. They are worried about these cuts. They will be devastating to their schools and our local communities. School councils, like that at Rosebery Middle School, have received a briefing on a range of issues from the department, but a lot of unanswered questions still remain.
Minister, why are you forcing these cuts on our schools but not listening to those who are affected the most: the teachers and the parents? They are speaking up, but you are not listening. They are concerned about what is happening in our schools and are worried for the future. Where have you been in the last three weeks? Our education system is in crisis. Teachers are taking industrial action, yet you duck and weave. As the Minister for Education, you need to talk, listen and take that back to your Chief Minister and Treasurer. You have been critical of previous ministers for not consulting, but you are not doing what you have always called for.
The government is wrong to say that education in the Northern Territory is going backwards. The Northern Territory has had the greatest improvements in Australia, between 2008 and 2010, by Indigenous students in Years 3, 5, 7 and 9 in reading, spelling, grammar and punctuation. These results are a great tribute to the hard work of teachers in our schools across the Territory and the students themselves. These improvements are being put at risk by the actions of your CLP government.
In NAPLAN results the Territory compares well across a number of areas. I will read some out for the Parliamentary Record because we need to dismiss this notion that the Territory is bad, that we have bad results, we are going backwards and we must stop. That is wrong. In Year 3 reading, the Northern Territory outperforms the ACT, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia. Congratulations to those students and those teachers. In Year 5 reading, the NT outperforms the Australian average. It also outperforms the ACT, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, WA and Tasmania. In Year 7 reading, the Northern Territory outperforms the Australian average. In Year 3 numeracy, the NT outperforms the Australian average. I can go on and on.
You, as minister, have used numerous excuses to try to shift the blame onto education. In this parliament you have admitted that CLP cuts are about budget rather than education, and that gets us to our point. Minister, you said the NT budget position justified cutting education:
It is your responsibility as the Minister for Education to protect the Education budget and protect teachers by not cutting their numbers in Cabinet. This is the minister who also said:
Minister, we are jumping up and down. Parents, teachers and our community are saying you cannot cut education. You are cutting our investment in the future. It is the opportunities for Territory children that you are taking. It is the government’s role to ensure every child has access to quality education across the Territory. What you are doing will impact on students for years to come. This is why parents and teachers are so concerned. You continue to play ducks and drakes on the numbers. You are on the record as saying:
At estimates you said, minister, of teachers in middle and senior years that:
In October you told the Northern Territory News:
How could anyone believe fewer teachers is better for our education system? Everyone knows – parents, teachers – that more individual attention means better educational outcomes, better results for our students. More support means our students will learn and develop the skills to contribute positively to our society.
Only this week you refused to tell the people of Alice Springs what is happening in their schools. When asked by the Centralian Advocate to confirm how many staff schools would be capable of employing next year, Mr Chandler’s department said the most recent allocations were subject to change depending on how principals chose to administer them. The system is in chaos. We know that in Alice Springs support staff will not be there next year. Why do we know that, minister? Because people are telling us they are currently employed in a support staff role in a school, yet next year they do not have a job; they will be gone. You cannot get any more accurate than that. You claim this will have no impact on our children but support staff help our teachers every day. We are nearing the end of the school year and, minister, you are not being clear with the community.
When I was in Katherine recently I visited a school which has a program, as every Territory school does, where the children are put into small groups to work intensively. The teacher is supported by support staff and that school is improving – their NAPLAN results went up. They showed me improving results on their wave formulation, yet that school may lose up to 10 teachers and support staff next year and will not be able to offer that program. You are taking away from our Territory children. We need to work with them. We cannot turn out back on them now. Some of these children are from the most disadvantaged backgrounds. Our role as parliamentarians and your role as a government is to ensure they are supported to learn, but you are cutting support staff and those programs.
The CLP’s savage education cuts are having a huge impact in bush schools. Concerned parents have contacted my colleagues, the members for Barkly and Nhulunbuy, as well as urban members. They are concerned about the loss of Indigenous languages and cultural support positions, something my Indigenous colleagues in the parliament would be devastated by. The Indigenous language and culture positions include Indigenous language officers, language resources officers and other positions which are vital to support students and teachers. The ILC programs are important cultural maintenance programs, valued and respected by family, elders and communities.
Only yesterday, this parliament had a condolence motion for Dr Yunupingu, one of our leading Indigenous educators – one of the first. These are programs he knew we must have. I know my Indigenous and bush colleagues are critical of the government and have told the government to stop and listen, but you are not listening and these are the programs we are losing. These students will miss out.
These job losses in communities will also decimate the Indigenous knowledge worker in the bush schools. We have people telling us they are losing their positions – respected elders. The school is the hub of these communities, but you are decimating that through your actions. As a government, you should be supporting programs which encourage learning.
The Northern Territory Open Education Centre is located in my electorate of Nightcliff. This is something you have mishandled. You are so critical about consultation but you have done nothing. All you did was put out a media release when forced to because the opposition requested a briefing. It has been at its current location for many years and has studio classrooms and technology to teach students across the bush. Your government is saying that students can pick up subjects from bush school through NTOEC, yet you are attacking NTOEC. You are moving it with no plan. We do not know the cost of the relocation of NTOEC or of the music school.
I was at Sanderson Middle School recently and there are major works occurring there costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more, yet you can do all that without any consultation.
I understand you have disbanded Student Support Services and relocated the remaining staff into Harbour View. What has happened to ICT for Learning? Our children know technology better than us, yet we do not have an ICT for Learning department. What kind of Education minister allows that to happen? These are just some of the many examples and questions that have been put to us.
Minister, you have caused great disruption – a domino effect of moving, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars with no consultation. Staff in these schools are extremely worried and stressed. They do not know how they will teach. All staff and teachers across the Territory are worried and stressed. What you have done to staff morale in our schools is appalling. It might seem trivial but staff are wondering where they will be teaching and what they will be teaching. We have a couple of weeks to go. Traditionally, at this time of year teachers are wrapping up reports, doing final assessments, planning Christmas concerts and activities for the children, yet our education system is in crisis and, as a government, you are not listening.
There are teachers who do not know where they will be next year; they are in bush schools and they only know they are moving when the removalists turn up. There are stories of bush teachers having their items moved into Darwin, yet they are from somewhere else. There are teachers at some of our senior schools within the Darwin area who have families, mortgages and homes who are being told they do not have a position at that school; they might have to go bush. This is the chaos you are causing.
We spoke earlier in Question Time – we know for sure there are 105 contract teachers who will not have a job in a couple of weeks. We know there are 450 displaced staff. This, minister, is the chaos, the upheaval, you are causing. These are the stories we know. We know we need to invest in our bush system. You talked about the cost per capita to educate children in the Northern Territory. We live in a hugely sparse territory, with very remote locations, but those children deserve that investment.
Under Labor, we put secondary schools in the bush for the first time. Do you know why that was done? Because everybody knows if you leave children in their communities and allow them to learn surrounded by family and friends they will learn better. If they come into town they are likely to go off track; they need to be in their communities, learning. That is why our bush colleagues are concerned about these cuts in the bush. You need to listen to them, minister. You will not listen to me because I am the opposition and you say you cannot listen, but you will not listen to your own colleagues. The bush constituents are the people who elected you. You constantly tell us they won you government, yet you are not listening.
Minister, why is there a rush, why no consultation? You talked today of the three reviews you have taking place. Why not stop, reverse the decisions and take stock with those reviews? I understand, as a government, you have the right to implement your policies, but you do not have any policies or you are making policy up on the run and doing reviews afterwards. Just stop, reinstate teachers and leave things as they are.
A number of your colleagues have spoken to you about this and some positions have been saved, but we know many more are going. What you are doing is causing a huge disruption to schools and students, costing millions of dollars. You are not just cutting teacher numbers, you are cutting vital support staff numbers.
At Gunbalanya, they are losing five teachers – two primary, two middle, one secondary – and a number of support staff. They have no guarantee of a specialist ESL teacher for the community, where English is a second language. We are talking about a remote community where every student is an ESL student, yet they do not have an ESL support teacher. These are the things we are talking about. Ramingining is another community with similar concerns.
I call on my bush colleagues – we have an education statement later today – to raise these questions and issues.
Last week, teachers in remote and regional parts of the Territory took industrial action in Arnhem Land. My colleague, the member for Nhulunbuy, reported to me there were hundreds who took part in that rally. We saw the footage of Ramingining. They are sending a message to you and your government. We saw a number of petitions tabled in this parliament yesterday. These are messages from real people who are saying ‘stop, take stock’.
Minister, as I said, I can understand why you might ignore me, but why are you ignoring teachers? Why are you ignoring parents? Why are you ignoring your colleagues? You have an Indigenous education review taking place, but that will be meaningless without genuine consultation in bush communities, and it will be too late; you will have cut everything in the meantime. You need to stop, take stock, consult widely on Indigenous education and receive the best advice from remote communities across the Territory.
I could go on regarding the support staff number cuts. We know that 71 staff have gone, 80 have been regionalised. We still cannot see them moving across to another organisational chart. There is so much chaos in our education system and you are the minister responsible. School support positions providing vital support, such as ICT and behaviour management counselling, are gone.
Something I must raise is the GEMS program, the mentoring program for young girls. What parents and teachers tell me is the hardest cohort, due to our society at the moment, seems to be middle years girls. There are huge impacts from social media. This GEMS program was something real. Have you spoken to those girls? They are devastated. That program might have cost $1m, but that investment was worth it. Four schools – I understand there are 50 students enrolled at each school, but I know they accept every girl in those schools into the program. It provides support, it makes teachers jobs easier and it gives those girls an opportunity. You are turning your back on them and that is not good enough for our young girls.
Education of young Territorians is important. It is about our future. That is why I am so passionate. Education should be a key priority for governments, and parents and teachers are angry when it is not. The contrast could not be clearer, as a Labor party member, I support public education. I support the right of every Territory child to a good quality education.
You are a government driven by cost cutting and have been unable to provide any justification for your cuts. It is time for this minister to be condemned for not stopping the cuts to education funding, cutting teacher numbers and cutting support staff and programs.
Mr CHANDLER (Education): Madam Speaker, education is an extremely emotional issue because it touches so many people. I was a member of the Bakewell School council between 2001 and 2007, for five of those years as the Chair, under the former Labor government. Do you think things like this did not happen every year and this is unprecedented? Do you think some of the things happening at the moment did not ever happen before?
Ms Lawrie: Rubbish.
Mr CHANDLER: You are so wrong. Most of the confusing messages are spread by you and the union. If I believed just half of the things spread by the Labor Party, the member for Nightcliff and the union, I would probably be on strike too. The truth is that it is just not right.
No wonder people are confused. During those years, under a Labor government, when I was a council chair, we went through the same thing every year when the allocations were out. We would sit down, as a school council and with the principal, and work out how we would use those allocations.
I will give you an example of some of the confusing messages – if she wanted to stay in the room and listen to them. It is okay for us to listen to them …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, withdraw that comment, please. You know under standing orders you do not reference members leaving the room.
Mr CHANDLER: I withdraw, Madam Speaker, just like the member for Nightcliff.
During the last sittings …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! He did not withdraw. He qualified his withdrawal.
Madam SPEAKER: He has withdrawn it, sit down. Minister, you have the call.
Mr CHANDLER: If she not is happy, I will withdraw again, just like the member for Nightcliff.
The member for Nightcliff said in the last sittings that Nightcliff Middle School is experiencing a growth spurt and will lose eight teachers. Nightcliff Middle School is actually projected to lose 12 student enrolments in 2014 and will lose 2.56 teachers.
Ms Lawrie: No, their numbers are going up and they cannot even project a timetable.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 51. We gave the opposition the courtesy of listening patiently and in silence; I would ask the opposition to extend the same.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, thank you, member for Port Darwin. Minister, please pause while I welcome some students.
Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of two Year 4/5 classes from Sacred Heart Catholic Primary School, accompanied by their teachers Mrs Erceg, Miss Morrisey and Miss Trudy. On behalf of honourable members, I welcome you to Parliament House and hope you enjoy your time and visit here with us.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr CHANDLER: I will try to unpack a few things, but there is just so much misinformation out there at the moment. We provide briefings to the Labor opposition and the union, being open and honest. What they choose to do with that information is really up to them. What they choose to do is stir the water.
People in the community get confused. They do not know what is going on. There is anger in the community over some of the misinformation. Each year when the allocations are given to schools it is up to the principals, the school councils and the teachers to work out how they will use their allocation. I have a list here; everything in green on this list refers to schools across the Territory that will be better resourced than they were this time last year. Many schools will receive additional resources. The catastrophe in education, the crisis of education that has been so eloquently described by the Labor opposition, is just plain wrong.
I will go back to some of the things the member for Nightcliff raised, but I want to talk about some of the impacts affecting our schools today. Our schools often become a measure of the social implications affecting our society. The focus is on schools all the time because they are measured, they are places money is invested in and there are good, hard-working teachers there. As society breaks down in so many areas, more and more responsibilities are placed on our teachers. If we can remove some of those complications – as a society, a Territory government and a federal government – and can tackle some of the social implications impacting our schools today, we will go so much further in educating our children. If the social implications are causing students to stay away from schools, that is one big thing and that is where I am asking the federal government for assistance; help us get our children to school. The social impacts in our society today, coming into schools and causing everything from bullying to antisocial behaviour, impact on schools every day. Who is ultimately responsible for dealing with all those things? Our teachers. Our teachers have to do so much more today than they did years ago. As a society we need to tackle some of the bigger issues and let teachers get back to what they should be doing: educating our children. That is what we have to do.
For so many years, education has had bolt-on after bolt-on which were not really about educating our children; they are about dealing with some of the social impacts of our society. That is the truth. So many of the things mentioned today – the different programs we have running in schools, what are they for? Are they to help someone read, write or add up better? No, they are dealing with social impacts, and our teachers are ultimately responsible for them.
If you move up the chain to look at some of the administrative burdens placed on our schools – the administrative burdens placed on our Education department by the federal government are unbelievable. The Northern Territory government has about 31 partnerships with the federal government, taking up valuable time and effort for staff just to manage paperwork. All those resources are taken away from our classrooms. We need to streamline the administrative processes, from the federal government to the Territory government down to schools, to lessen the burden on principals and teachers in most of the reporting they do today, which, quite frankly, is more about numbers than the welfare or education of our children.
When I was Minister for Business, so many businesses said they would start an apprentice who had been through Year 11 and 12 and have to put them through writing or maths courses to get them to a level to cope with the work an apprentice is responsible for.
It is horrible to think we have kids going all the way through our school system who still need a top up with education before they can work as an apprentice. That does not for one moment take away some of the fantastic results we have in our schools across the Territory. There are some fantastic results and we have probably the hardest working teachers in Australia. Why? Because of the things they have to do every day in our schools, dealing with the social impacts that have a direct consequence in our schools.
We could have continued, when we came into government, going down the line of the former Labor government. I have seen the investment in education and infrastructure but, quite frankly, much of the investment is not improving our results, particularly in remote areas. There would not be a person here that could disagree that we all should be working towards improving educational outcomes for our students in the Northern Territory, particularly those children in our remote areas with all the challenges they face. That is why we need a review of Indigenous education.
For goodness sake, the last review was in 1999. It was commissioned in 1998, completed in 1999 and basically put on the shelf by you guys. There were some good recommendations. Here we are, 15 years down the track, 11 years of a Labor government, and not once was Indigenous education looked at to see how things could be improved. We need to review it today and see what changes we need to make; we need to look at what is working and what is not and resource the things that are working.
Some of the interim results coming back from that review show there appears to be a scattergun approach to education in the NT, particularly in our remote areas. The intent is probably honourable; someone is looking for that silver bullet which will change education. I do not believe there is a single silver bullet; you will need a whole magazine and a number of ways to deal with education, particularly the further we go out.
I spoke to your former Education minister, Syd Stirling, recently and he said middle years need to be reviewed. You talk about moving teachers from here to there, saying it is causing a crisis and has never happened before. What about when middle years was brought in? You took teachers from primary schools and high schools and put them into a middle years program. You created something new in the Northern Territory. You did not have specifically trained middle years teachers.
On top of that, there were agreements with the union to over-resource …
Ms Lawrie: They were used to teaching those grades.
Mr McCarthy: Years 7 to 9.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 51 …
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, Leader of Government Business. Opposition members, I ask you to cease interjecting and allow the minister to proceed.
Mr CHANDLER: When middle years was introduced, there was recognition from the then government and the unions that they over-resourced middle years to get them through the interim period it would take to roll it out. None of those resources have been rolled back over the years. There was recognition they were over-resourced at the start.
The areas where we can do so much better in our schools are support of teachers, improving discipline and handling some of the issues occurring in our schools which are taking away from teachers’ valuable time to teach our children.
There is one thing for certain: we need to do things differently to get better results. Let me talk about three key planks in our plan to do things differently and lift education outcomes in the Northern Territory. First, we are investing more into the early years because that is where the research tells us we need to be targeting our resources: more teachers in the primary school years. We are putting over 60 teachers into Transition to Year 3 because the experts are telling us that is where we need to focus. We are putting more teachers and more resources into the area where the research tells us it is required to build a solid foundation and assist those children through the later primary years, middle years and senior years. If you build a solid foundation for a house, you have a house for a long time. We want to provide a solid education for those younger children.
Second, we have initiated a comprehensive review of Indigenous education in the Northern Territory because that is where we are failing the most, and no one can argue that point.
Third, we are reviewing the entire Education Act to ensure it will allow for changes to how we deliver education.
This government is delivering reforms in education which the previous Labor government failed to deliver in its 11 years of failure. In fact, they did not have the courage to make the necessary changes to improve education.
It is the Country Liberals government that is reviewing the Education Act, not the former Labor government. It is the Country Liberals who have commenced a review into Indigenous education in the Northern Territory, not the Labor Party. It is the Country Liberals who are introducing reforms to allow for community driven schools in the Northern Territory, something people have been requesting for some time. It is the Country Liberals who are examining the timing of school terms in the Northern Territory – again, something parents and teachers have been talking about for some time but which was never addressed by Labor. It is the Country Liberals who are focused on eliminating violent behaviour in schools through reinvigorating the Safe Schools program. It is the Country Liberals who looked closely at the student/teacher ratios in schools and made significant investment in the future of our children by reducing the ratio in the early childhood years while responsibly remodelling the ratios at middle and senior school levels.
It beggars belief that the opposition would attempt to censure the government on the topic of education. This was probably their most significant area of policy failure in the 11 years they were in government. When it came to education, Labor was a failure; there is simply no better way to describe their legacy.
I have called for the review of the Education Act. The act, and its attendant subordinate legislation, underpins all school education in the Northern Territory. The Education Act commenced in 1979 with self-government and, apart from an ad hoc amendment, it remained substantially unchanged until 2009. The act remains dated and there is a strong case for its holistic reform.
Ms Lawrie: 2009
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CHANDLER: I just said that if you were listening. For example, the act still retains provisions which repeal the South Australian ordinances applicable prior to self-government, dealing with handicapped children, which have had no application for at least the last 20 years. It also makes provision for post-compulsory years of schooling colleges, which have not existed for several years and are unlikely to be required in the future.
The review process to date has entailed a comparison of the act with legislation in other jurisdictions to identify options for reform which could better meet the current needs of students. An entirely new act is preferred because existing provisions are already significantly disjointed due to some amendments which occurred in 2009 and 2011. It is likely the review will recommend that the whole structure of the act needs to change. I expect a draft paper will provide a basis for targeted consultation with a more comprehensive options paper to follow.
I have called for a timely review into Indigenous education. A review of Indigenous education in the NT is being undertaken. Consultations have commenced throughout the Department of Education and Children’s Services with the NT Indigenous Education Council, the Department of the Chief Minister and representatives from the non-government school sector to test the scope of the review and inform stakeholders of the review process.
Procurement processes for an expert consultant to conduct the review have been completed and the contract has been awarded to Bruce Wilson of the Education Business. The terms of reference for the review have been considered by government. The review will provide a preliminary report in December this year and the final report and implementation plan for government’s consideration in early March 2014. DECS will align its resources to meet the cost of the review at the moment. Any money we can secure from the federal government will allow us to get on and implement those changes, unlike what happened to the last Indigenous review in 1999.
Education provision in the Northern Territory occurs within a unique context and includes a diverse student cohort. Unlike any other jurisdiction, Territory schools have the highest proportion of Indigenous students, representing over 41% of enrolments across government schools in the NT. The last review of Indigenous education was in 1998 and was given to government in 1999. Despite the additional investment since then, Indigenous student literacy and numeracy outcomes in the NT fall well below non-Indigenous literacy and numeracy outcomes. They also fall below outcomes for Indigenous students from other jurisdictions.
The review will examine the impact of current programs and initiatives. It will also examine evidence and will advise on an optimal model for allocating existing resources. Clear directions need to be set for schools, including engaging with Indigenous parents and families and ensuring there is accessible information available for parents on the education standards and attendance rates their children are achieving.
It is a right of all Territory students to receive an education. With that right, however, comes responsibilities, and so often today our teachers, our schools, ultimately end up with the responsibility parents and carers should be providing.
I was speaking recently to an assistant in Alice Springs and I asked what their day encompassed. They were doing a number of things that parents and carers should be doing, which took up a big part of their day. I wondered how many other resources in education today are used to back up what parents and carers should be providing. That is the truth. As I said in the opening statement, our schools are so monitored, they are so measured. They are so in touch with our community through school councils and parents that they often become the focal point of any measurement of a community. Often, if there is a problem at a school it is something which has happened in the community that has led to it. Ultimately, the school seems to be the responsible body to attend to it. Those responsibilities have grown tremendously in recent years and more pressure, as well as responsibilities, are placed on teachers. This is undeserved because many are community issues. During my discussions with Christopher Pyne several weeks ago in Canberra, I said that helping us would involve getting our kids to school to start dealing with some of the social implications.
I really hate the term ‘whole-of-government approach’ but this will take a whole-of-government approach to sort out some of the mess that impacts on our schools and ultimately impacts on educational outcomes for our children. It is not just the Department of Education’s responsibility, not just the teachers’ responsibility, it is a whole-of-government and community responsibility to deal with some of the issues having a detrimental effect on student outcomes in the Northern Territory.
I have listened to people in many of our remote Indigenous communities and, unlike what the member for Nightcliff said, I have been visiting school councils, but she can just throw these lines away. I have visited many schools and believe strongly in our government’s belief that pursuing the community-driven schools initiative, particularly in the remote areas, is one of the right ways to go.
The Northern Territory government made an election commitment that is summarised – Aboriginal people want a greater say in how their schools are run. A new approach is needed to give more power to local communities that want greater responsibility for educating their children. That is one of the bridges required to get our children to school and something we should not be afraid to tackle. We should have the courage to move in that direction, but the wants of the community have to be met with responsibilities. While the Northern Territory government has the responsibility to govern through the act to regulate schools, it is a responsibility we will not take lightly. It is not a case of giving a school away and running it as a community-driven school; there are processes behind that. There are regulations and governance structures that need to be put in place before that can occur. It is something we are working on now.
There are many more things we could say about education. There are many issues where education affects our society, but I spoke with the Treasurer yesterday about some of the things we should be looking at in education. We really need to have an education system that can set our children up for jobs in the Northern Territory. We should be setting our children on a course to stay in the Northern Territory, and our education system should focus on that. That does not take opportunities away from children who want to broaden their horizons and end up in New York or London with their chosen vocation, but we need to provide a solid foundation and a solid education. On so many levels today we are not delivering that. I am not taking away from the good results we get in some schools, but the wider we go, the more remote we go – the additional resources put into those schools have not led to an improvement in results.
The member for Nightcliff said I have not visited schools or school councils and that is wrong. It is like much of the information she has come out with recently. It must have been embarrassing recently to do the media circus on the closing down of the Malak re-engagement centre. My goodness! I visited it and, all of a sudden, we are closing the blinds. How wrong!
Ms Lawrie: We know how quickly you backflipped.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms Fyles: We are glad you backflipped.
Mr CHANDLER: It was not a backflip; I wanted to know what was happening there. There is a big investment by the Northern Territory government. In fact, in the car on the way back to Parliament House, I thought, ‘Wow, how can we get more kids to go through that system? How can we get more children engaged in that program?’ It is a great investment. There are some great people working there, yet all we get is rhetoric from the Labor opposition, and they stand outside the Malak re-engagement centre with the union saying we will close it down. Goodness gracious, if that was to happen with every school I visited, we would have a lot of schools closed today.
It is just rhetoric and scaremongering, and we wonder why the morale in our schools is affected with the misinformation being spread. We say 35 teachers, you say 150; we say there are a few million dollars here, you say we are cutting $250m from Education next year. Wrong, wrong, wrong! You do not have it right. All you are doing is stirring the pot, and it is little wonder that teachers, parents and the community are angry because of the misinformation.
As I said at the outset, briefings were provided to not only you, member for Nightcliff, but the member for Fannie Bay and others who were interested in education, as well as the unions. We gave them information directly from the department. We do not make up these figures, they come from the department. We provide these figures to you, and you have thrown them on the roulette table and come up with 13. All of a sudden, the numbers come out triple or worse. You then come back to me and say we have a crisis; teachers and the community are in outrage. I wonder why? It is because of the misinformation being spread.
The only one who is spreading this information is you, member for Nightcliff. If you were serious about education, about delivering and improving our results in the Territory, you would be working on a solution. Your only solution is to continue to do it the way we have always done it. That is not good enough and Territorians deserve so much better.
This Country Liberals government has the courage to do what is right in education, to focus on what will work and remove these bolt-ons that cause a blowout in education and take away from what teachers should be focused on: the classroom. The more resources we can give to teachers to use in the classroom the better.
How many of our resources are taken away because of bureaucratic processes and the social impacts on our schools every day? These are things we have to deal with, but it should not always be teachers’ and the Department of Education’s responsibility.
I heard the member for Nightcliff say we are not supporting education, particularly for our remote students. I remind her, it was the federal Labor government that took away the additional funding for boarding schools in the Northern Territory, which had a huge impact on delivering a decent education for many Indigenous students. There are some great boarding facilities that lost major funding under the federal Labor government. Once that funding was gone, what happened? The student numbers dropped off.
They can talk all they like about the fact they want to support legislation. As I said earlier in Question Time today, no one wants to talk about the fact that $1.2bn was stripped out of the federal education budget over the forward estimates – slipped in before the last election. We did not hear Labor talking about that. There was $1.2bn that was once there and is now gone. It just happened to be the same amount of money that was promised to Queensland, the Northern Territory and Western Australia, the only three jurisdictions which did not sign up to Gonski, after a promise from minister Shorten that we would be looked after and would receive equal funding – wink, wink, nod, nod, the way you guys operate. There was $1.2bn stripped from the forward estimates for education at the federal level. Now what does the new federal government find? It finds a black hole left by the former Labor government, just like the debt situation here and across the country.
It does not go away if you forget or stop talking about it. The architect sits opposite. The architect of the fiscal position the Northern Territory is in today is sitting opposite us right now. We are responsible enough to work with it and manage it, unlike the former Labor government, which thinks it can continue to go on a spending spree. We have seen what spending an additional $220m on education over the last five years has done.
I have said from the outset, in the last five years the student cohort grew by 173 students. In that same time, the department employed 790 staff, many of those people on contracts. Partnerships have run out with the federal government and we are left to deal with those issues today. That is something the former government does not want to admit, but for many of the partnerships that were short term, that were contract positions, the money has stopped and we are left to deal with mopping up after you.
It will take years of reform for a responsible government to manage the fiscal position in the Northern Territory. I have often heard it said that the size of the mop required and the time it takes to clean up a mess is determined by the size of the mess. We need a very big mop and it will take a bit of time to sort out the mess left by the former Labor government, not only in education, but in so many areas.
As the Lands and Planning minister I know how the cost of living in the Northern Territory affects members today – all of the architects sitting on the other side with not enough land release causing additional pressures. This affects everyone, down to parents of children who go to our schools. The budget situation does not make it any easier, but that is not an excuse for not trying to do it differently.
You can clearly see by the graphs shown by the Attorney-General earlier that if we continue to do what the member for Nightcliff wants us to do – continue using the same methods the former Labor government used – it will not improve results. It would just keep costing more. It is timely to review how we deliver education in the Northern Territory. It is timely to get behind teachers, and we can only do that with the resources of government to focus how we spend that money today, and focus we will. We will focus on things that work and get rid of things that do not. We need to take a whole-of-government approach to this. We need to work across governments at different levels to support us to deal with many of the social impacts affecting our schools today.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the opposition is intent on trying to get the community’s message through to the Education minister, and what we have heard again is his abysmal failure to listen. He wants to believe, and he clings to the belief, we are just making it up, that it is just misinformation being peddled by Labor and the unions.
He has his head buried so deeply in the sand that it is little wonder education is in crisis. The facts are there, minister, and the shadow minister called on you to go to the schools. If you went to Ramingining School with the Chief Minister and the member for Arnhem when they visited the week before last, you would have heard directly, as they did, from the school principal about the severe cuts occurring there.
You remain steadfast in your denial of what is happening on the ground. The information the principals have is that they have had no choice but to inform the teachers they no longer have a job. That is happening on the ground. Just as the member for Arnhem has heard it at Ramingining, the member for Namatjira has heard it at Ntaria – Hermannsburg. We have heard it because we have either gone to the schools or they are e-mailing, calling and Facebooking us. They are saying, ‘Please help us. Please stop these cuts because we cannot afford to lose a single teacher from these bush schools.’
Shepherdson College on Elcho Island is losing eight teachers. It costs about $30 000 to remove a teacher from an island like Elcho, but you are steadfastly going ahead with it while you deny it in this Chamber. That is the real problem we have, Minister for Education. That is why we are censuring not just you, but the Chief Minister and the Treasurer, because of your denial of what is happening on the ground.
You believe people are so stupid they will not see it for themselves. The teachers who filled the galleries today did so because at their schools they are losing their colleagues, or they are contract teachers – I know some of them – who are losing their jobs. They know it is happening to them and their colleagues. They also know about the support staff they are losing at their schools because it is now so late in the year, people are starting to be informed. But not all schools, minister, have full details of what they are losing yet. It is way behind schedule, and you heard someone from the gallery interject to say, ‘No, we do not have that yet, minister’. You are saying one thing and on the ground the fact is quite different.
The opposition has consistently challenged you to provide the details to the principals who you now say have to do their job and work out what to do with their complement. Provide that school by school and publicly release it. We heard Taminmin College was losing five teachers. We then heard, with the advocacy of the member for Goyder, those five teachers were being saved. You then went on ABC radio and said the cuts would go ahead. We have heard from the school council it is a total complement of 20 staff – a combination of teachers and support staff. When a school council that sits alongside the school principal provides that information, you need to tell us and release the facts if that is not the case. School councils are telling us of the extent of the cuts as the information lands.
You say enrolments are dropping at Nightcliff Middle School, but the school council sees reports that enrolments are increasing. You say only five teachers are going from Sanderson Middle School, yet eight teachers are losing their jobs. You say you want to see effective programs in the schools, yet the GEMS program was axed from four schools while it remains in others. Minister, you claim this information, but you provide no public documentation to counter what is being said.
We have consistently asked you to release the information provided to school principals. You claim you have provided it, yet you have not released it, tabled it in the parliament, released it to the media or handed it over in briefings. Minister, you will have a second speaker, and I am sure if you have the information you will have the opportunity to table it today, school by school. Let us be clear about what we want: the teachers and support staff. As you heard in debate, a lot of Indigenous jobs have been lost in bush schools because of those all-important Indigenous linguistic and cultural officer positions, the home liaison positions, the front office admin staff positions and the teacher aide and support positions. They are the 150-odd support positions being axed.
When you provide the school by school breakdown, let us be clear about this, provide it for both teachers and support staff. Those two Indigenous women per school being axed as a result of the GEMS program, make sure they are on the list because we know they exist. We know they are wage earners today and we know they are being sacked through your decisions, Education minister.
You would have us believe we are making this up and somehow the people of Ramingining are being hoodwinked, the families and community of Taminmin College are being hoodwinked and the people of Areyonga are being hoodwinked.
In this parliament yesterday, members of the CLP tabled petitions. The member for Goyder tabled a petition with 113 signatories from Yuendumu opposing the cuts. The member for Namatjira tabled a petition with 62 signatories from Areyonga opposing the cuts. The member for Arnhem tabled a petition with 99 signatories from Ramingining opposing the cuts. You maintain these people are being misled by Labor and the unions because they have misinformation. Wrong! These are members of the school staff and school community who know what is going on in their communities, in their schools. They are seeing the jobs lost and you have your head firmly buried in the sand.
It beggars belief that a government can say, ‘We are undertaking reviews into education because we want better outcomes. We want to hear from the experts about what is a better way of achieving learning outcomes for our students.’ Prior to the reviews, you proceeded with axing hundreds of positions from education, teaching and support staff positions. In what logic do you slash the Education department budget, cutting and sacking across teachers and crucial support staff before you have a result from your reviews? Who does that? The CLP, because they are so foolish, stupid and rash.
To deal with it, they lie about the numbers of teachers being sacked. You say 35, but 105 teachers have signed up to the education union because they are losing their jobs this year. You lie about support staff and the Commonwealth funding. First you tried to blame the Commonwealth. ‘We are only cutting because the Commonwealth has ended partnership funding.’ You blamed it all on Commonwealth funding cuts, which you spread to unions in meetings and then through teachers, classrooms and staff rooms.
That is interesting. I said to the union, ‘You might want to ask for the list of the Commonwealth partnerships that have ended to precipitate these funding cuts. Why do you not ask for a list from the government?’ Well, they did. At the next meeting they had with the department and the government they asked for a list. They are still waiting for that, minister. I know 200 teachers are funded under the national partnership agreement for 10 years and you are only a couple of years into that agreement under Stronger Futures. Senator Scullion contradicted you on radio in central Australia – was it radio or newspaper? – saying, ‘Actually, the funding is still there for the buses to get the kids to school from the town camps of Alice Springs …’
Mr Elferink: That is not true.
Ms LAWRIE: I will pick up on the interjection. Senator Scullion is saying the funding is still there and the member for Port Darwin is saying it is not true. Who do you believe?
By all means, show evidence of the Commonwealth partnerships in education that have ceased in the calendar year 2013 and will cease in the calendar year 2014. Show us. You have not answered the request from the union for good reason: it is lies. The 200 teachers in the bush funded by the Commonwealth is a 10-year funding agreement. You are a disgrace!
You then tell the big lie, which is an embarrassing thing to do anyway, that government would dis its own education system. You do this because you are so desperate with the big lie that it is all a failure. We are failing in our education outcomes. However, you have issued media releases lauding the success. Do you forget what you have said? The former CLP Minister for Education, Robyn Lambley, the member for Araluen, said that results released in September 2010 indicated in 11 out of 15 test categories Territory students outstripped the national average rate of improvement and were the most improved in the nation for reading, spelling and grammar.
There is no doubt we were coming off a low base, but what were we doing? We were improving at the fastest rate in the nation, not failing like you would have everyone believe because that suits your lies.
In 2010, Labor said the Territory was at the start of at least a five-year, if not 10-year, journey to improve education outcomes. You have taken an axe to that without your own reviews being finalised to offer expert opinion on what you should do. Every government comes in with its policies, but a government that takes an axe to an education system without even finalising its own reviews to show them the alternative is plain stupid. This is a dereliction of duty to Territorians who elected them. The greatest irony is the people you are hurting the most – the cuts are deepest across the bush communities – are the people who elected you.
Minister Lambley, when she was the Education minister, said:
The shadow minister for Education talked about the genuine results occurring with Year 12 graduations. We now have the shameful situation where the CLP’s Indigenous policy is being bandied around even before the results of your review. It says you will remove senior education from bush schools; you will take us back over a decade to the bad days when the students could not graduate in their own community. You bandy that policy around before you have even finished your Indigenous education review. It is being done, not by a team of expert educators from the Territory, but by a guy called Bruce Wilson from Victoria. How far and how deep did you search for him? Why did you ignore the reasonable request to put senior Indigenous educators on the review team? People like Gurruwun Yunupingu?
Debate suspended
Ms LAWRIE (Karama)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition not conforming with standing orders from 229 petitioners relating to the destruction of NT education by slashing teacher funding.
Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
Ms LAWRIE (Karama)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition not confirming with standing orders from 2157 petitioners relating to the destruction of Northern Territory education by slashing teacher funding.
Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 124 petitioners praying that the historic town of Southport be provided with infrastructure. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders.
Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
Continued from earlier this day.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, before we went to lunch I went through the myth busting situation where the government wants to pretend this is about fixing education outcomes because the Territory has been such a poor performer. I went through the facts that had been led by the former CLP Education minister of how results have been improving across each of the testing periods, across 2008, 2010, 2011 and 2012 and show how we were performing. In 11 out of 15 test categories, Territory students outstripped the national average rate of improvement. I also spoke about the NAPLAN results showing the Territory comparing really well. In fact, Territory students were outperforming across Year 3, 5, 7 and 9 reading. They were also outperforming in Years 3, 5, 7 and 9 numeracy. This is myth busting in terms of the government’s big lie that this is all about the education system being one big failure in the Northern Territory.
I also spoke about how the government could convince anyone that cutting teachers from our classrooms is a good thing to do. Why would you want to lose teachers from Gunbalanya, Maningrida and Melville Island? You have to question what is happening with the cuts in real time at the schools.
We are now seeing members of parliament who are in government standing up to these ridiculous cuts. We are seeing the members for Namatjira, Goyder and Arnhem starting to speak out against their own government, against these horrific and very damaging cuts to education.
Sadly though, what we are seeing is the Chief Minister, the Treasurer and the Minister for Education failing to heed very strong warning signals coming from within their own government ranks, just as they did not want to listen to CLP members and the rank and file at the weekend during the CLP Central Council. They are deeply concerned that the wrong thing is being done in education in the Territory.
Education is the bedrock of providing our children with the brightest possible future. We do not exist in a perfect environment and the Minister for Education is now shifting the blame to parents. That is an easy and simple thing to do when you do not understand there are children living in tents in Ramingining because you have demolished the houses and not put them into transitional housing.
It is not an easy environment and none of us are pretending we have all the answers yet. You admit you do not know what you are doing in your policy settings because you are reviewing the Education Act. You are reviewing Indigenous education and middle schools; all of these are policy on the run reviews, but so be it. Get the evidence. Why would you cut education in any way before you had the evidence to tell you where you should apply your resources? The 105 teachers who are losing their jobs in a couple of weeks’ time will have to find work elsewhere, and herein lies the rub for many of us.
We are going to lose very talented teachers from our education system because you are in deep denial about the real impact of the cuts you are putting in place across our schools. Not only will we lose very good teachers – try the eight teachers losing their jobs on Elcho Island, being sent off the island from Shepherdson College at a cost of $30 000 per teacher to relocate. A dear friend of mine has already been told he is out. He is leaving Gunbalanya and will end up in an urban primary school in Darwin because we have displaced teachers.
I have already had a friend say goodbye to that Gunbalanya community. They are heading down south to teach in South Australia because they have lost their job at that community. This is real; this is not misinformation being peddled by Labor. Anyone who genuinely wants to know what is occurring simply has to go to their school council meeting and ask the principal what is occurring.
Members are very silent when it comes to Rosebery Middle School because that school council is trying to fight these cuts. Whether you look at the urban environment of our middle schools, Taminmin College or others, the government has created a disaster.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, the Northern Territory government is building a sustainable system that is better designed to meet the needs of Territory students and improve their results. Let me outline some of the facts that explain why we need to reform education in the Northern Territory.
Firstly, our schools and teachers are the best resourced in the country. This is highlighted by the 2013 report on government services which shows the Northern Territory government has consistently funded schools at a higher rate than other jurisdictions. Overall, the Northern Territory student teacher ratios are among the best in the nation.
I will refer to some statistics. In 2014, the teacher/student ratio will be around 11.8. In the ACT, it is 12.8, Tasmania 13.7, South Australia 14.3, Western Australia 14, Queensland 14.2, Victoria 13.6 and New South Wales 14.1. Despite this, our children’s school results are the worst in the country, and despite the fanciful illustrations by members opposite to try to explain that our NAPLAN results are the best in the country when they are quite clearly the worst.
Our 2013 Northern Territory NAPLAN (National Assessment Program - Literacy and Numeracy) – results show the lowest student attainment in Australia in every test domain and year level, despite what Labor is saying. Unfortunately, this is consistent with previous years. We know our teachers work hard, but we have an obligation to our parents and children to take decisive action to turn these results around.
We know over the past five years there has been more money, over $210m, and more staff in education, with 741 staff appointed in that five-year period. However, the investment in that frame has not produced the results in education outcomes as best illustrated through the NAPLAN results.
In education, just like every other government service agency, we need to deliver quality outcomes in the most efficient way that gets the best opportunity for people in life. We need a new approach to education if we want to improve outcomes and develop a skilled and capable workforce that contributes to the Northern Territory economy. One of the first things my government is doing is refocusing attention on early education with an additional 63 teachers. These are the only schooling levels where smaller class sizes have been proven to make a significant difference, but I will get back to that evidence shortly.
The Northern Territory government is determined to apply an evidence based approach to all decisions and implement what works. That is why we have commenced three reviews into education in the Territory: the student/teacher ratios in middle and secondary schools, the effectiveness of stand-alone middle schools and Indigenous education. These reviews will all be completed by early next year. Recently, the man heading the Indigenous education review, Mr Bruce Wilson, said in media:
In other words, we are spending money, but not getting the deliverables we expect for that investment. When we talk in such terminology about the deliverables we expect for such investment, we are talking about kids not achieving the results we expect. There clearly needs to be a better way of doing the business.
It is very clear that we need to build the evidence from those reports and ensure what we are investing in is right for the Territory and the Territory’s future. For too long, we have been expecting improved results while doing the same tired old Labor thing. As I mentioned before, the beginning of this change is through a greater focus on early years. We have reviewed the available research, and my government has decided to create an extra 63 teacher positions in the early years where it is proven increased investment yields the best results. The early years are clearly where these teachers can make the greatest difference laying the foundations for life long planning.
The other area that makes a big difference is attendance. Undoubtedly, the biggest challenge facing our education system is school attendance. Poor school attendance, particularly in the bush, remains one of the government’s core concerns and is a key driver of the poor outcomes. The Indigenous education review will propose ways of increasing attendance, but parents must also take the ultimate responsibility for ensuring their children go to school.
Under the government’s education reforms, the Territory will still be among the best resourced in the country. In the NT, our maximum class size is 27 students per class in our middle and senior secondary schools, and I will refer to class sizes in other jurisdictions. For example, in South Australia Years 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 all have a rate of 30 in their class; however, we currently provide one teacher for every 14 students in senior secondary and one for every 16 students in middle schools. When you take our poor attendance into account, our actual average class size is approximately 12 students per class in our middle and senior secondary schools, the lowest in the country by far. In fact, in some of our remote schools there are more teachers than students on some days.
To compare, Queensland has a maximum class size of 25 students per senior secondary class and manages to meet this ratio by staffing schools at the ratio of one teacher for every 23 students. It is a more efficient service with much better outcomes from an education point of view. There are so many teaching resources in some of our senior secondary schools but many staff have face-to-face contact with students that is well below the 21 hours 20 minutes they are required to be servicing. In some schools, teachers were teaching an average of less than three-and-a-half hours per day. All other jurisdictions are looking at delivering better outcomes through a better and more efficient teaching service.
Queensland has agreed to abolish maximum class sizes and Western Australia is looking at increasing its class sizes rather than employing new teachers as its student cohort grows. Despite all this, when the reform process is complete, the Northern Territory government middle schools and secondary schools will still be the best resourced and staffed schools in the country. Future decisions around the number of teaching staff, how to improve quality and so forth will increasingly be vested in school councils with the strategic support of the department utilising the outcomes of the reviews under way.
I appreciate the voices of concern the general public are showing. I appreciate the concern that has clearly been shown by some members on both sides of the Chamber, although there have not been any direct approaches to me. We are reforming the education system to ensure we have the smartest kids going into the future to support our growing economy. As a government, we are obliged to do that, particularly with the amount of investment we are making. We want the best outcomes in education. If we were achieving the best outcomes for that spend, it might be a different argument; however, we are spending enormous amounts of money and not achieving the outcomes. We want to look for smarter ways of doing business so we can have a more sustainable Northern Territory in the future.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I am also concerned about the state of education. Whilst I support the general line of this censure motion, I always find it difficult if the word ‘lying’ is present. If this had said, ‘Consistently hiding the sheer extent of the teacher’ or something like that - I might not agree with the Minister for Education’s policies, but I cannot call him a liar unless I have some hard evidence. I might say the government has been a bit tricky, I might say it is hiding the facts, but I always find it difficult; perhaps that is the way I was brought up, but I support the main thrust of what the opposition has brought forward today. I hope the minister listens to some of what is being said because what I will read today is not coming from me necessarily, although I have my own concerns; it is coming from people who have many years of experience and know what is happening on the ground.
Minister, I know figures and statistics are being quoted but when I talk to principals, as you do in the normal run of your job - I do not want to see any principal in trouble because I talk to principals about lots of things - I hear about the real stress they are going through at present. They are concerned about what is happening to their school because they are compassionate about their schools. Next year they want their schools, at the beginning of the school year, to be up and running with all hands on deck so the kids, the first day they get to school, away goes the school into the first term. Many principals have no idea what will happen next year. They do not know who they will have teaching, and they do not know which teachers they will lose. As a number of them said to me, ‘We are so sad some of our best teachers, the ones parents say are great teachers, will be lost and we have no say in keeping them because we will be given these other people’ - who may be good teachers, I am not knocking the people who are coming in for redeployment – ‘and we will lose some of our best teachers’.
I spoke to a young Aboriginal girl the other day, in my electorate, who is finishing her studies in Education this year. She cannot get a job. She was expecting to get a job, but I gather graduates from university are last on the list for having an opportunity to get a job within the Department of Education as a teacher. I hear these things and I know they are coming from people who know what is going on, on the ground.
Minister, I will read this letter from the school council at Taminmin. It is far better than I can say and I hope it reinforces there are real issues out there. It is not just about 35 positions being removed, it is more than that. This letter was to your Chief Executive - and, by the way, I have been told there has been no response yet to this letter. It says:
I was at that meeting, minister:
I have seen that stress, minister.
That has been spoken about today and I agree. Why was everything not put on hold until the reviews are completed?
I realise it is a long letter, members, but I think it is important. That is coming from the grass roots.
I would like to comment on the last paragraph. I also believe it is a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face. We have many people in prison. It is known if you develop early intervention schemes you will reduce the number of people going to prison. If we start to reduce the number of teachers dealing with kids who have behavioural problems, for instance, will we pay for it down the track? Government cannot have silos where the department of Education operates separately from the department of Corrections or the department of Police. It needs to look at these issues holistically because we will end up with more people in prison.
I spoke to the Isolated Children’s Parents Association recently and they have concerns about group schools being disbanded. They said it seems the government has decided to get rid of group schools and have a regional model. No one knows what the regional model is and it is nearly December. They have no idea what the future is. Were they involved in getting rid of group schools? I do not believe so.
There are issues with small schools like the Douglas Daly School which will only have one teacher. They asked if there was an OH&S issue if the teacher has a heart attack or hurts themself. Is anyone there to help or do you have a 10-year-old kid ring for assistance or try to help the injured person? They said previously they always had a part-time person working in that school. Those are some of the issues that have been mentioned to me about the changes.
We mentioned NTOEC. Minister, I am totally cynical because during the Estimates Committee you told the member for Fannie Bay you would save $6.6m by cutting the number of teachers. In fact, you kept repeating you were inheriting a budget deficit. The question is: where do you find $11m to move NTOEC, which does not need to go? I spoke to Vicki Proud, Chair of the NTOEC Council, and she said it did not need to go. Are we shifting it to move The Essington School there? You found $11m but do not have $6.6m to employ teachers.
I looked up the figures and, yes, there were 700 more teachers from about 2007 to about 2012. However, 200 of those teachers were picked up to work in remote schools. That was in 2009-10. I am not saying those figures are wrong, but statistics are statistics and need explanations. Where did those people go? What were they for? Where are they now? Without some detail, it is purely a number.
There are some issues. Teachers, students and principals are hurting and we need to do something. The government needs to wake up pretty quickly, otherwise they will not be around next election.
The Assembly divided:
Mr TOLLNER (Local Government and Regions): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Local Government Amendment Restructuring Bill 2013 (serial 60) passing through all stages at these sittings.
During the October 2013 sittings, this House passed the Local Government Amendment Act 2013. That act, amongst other things, introduces regional councils as a new category of local government council, in addition to municipal and shire councils, and introduces local authorities, whose primary role is to improve and enhance community involvement in local governance structures.
Honourable members will be aware that I foreshadowed further changes to legislation during the passage of the last amendments. It is clear the next step to facilitate further changes is this enabling legislation providing the power to make change. As honourable members are aware, I have already announced we intend to make boundary changes to include the Daly and all areas west of the Daly to provide greater control over the delivery of services within the changed boundaries. This is what more than 100 Indigenous Territorians representing clan groups from Peppimenarti, Daly, Wadeye, Palumpa, Nauiyu and surrounding homelands and outstations have told us they want. That is what our government is giving them …
A member interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: Sorry, I am speaking to that motion, Madam Speaker.
Ms Lawrie: It is not your second reading?
Mr TOLLNER: No, this is the motion to suspend standing orders to pass through all stages at these sittings on urgency.
As I was saying, more than 100 Indigenous Territorians said at a meeting attended by the Chief Minister, the local member, Gary Higgins, me and others that they want their own council, and that is what our government is giving them. We are also listening and consulting, and researching other possible council options.
This legislation gives me the power to create a prospective council. This body will eventually become a new council in Daly. This will ensure the development of the prospective council will be transparent. The entity will be able to make all the necessary arrangements for transition. I will establish a transition advisory committee with relevant stakeholders so, as plans for a new council develop and progress, the transition committee can provide guidance and advice. However, we cannot establish this new prospective council and the transition advisory committee until the legislation is passed. Until that time, everything is up in the air. The changes have now been identified. People know them and want them. We now need to begin the long and thorough process of implementing them.
The people in the Daly region want a new council and know a new council will be established. I need these restructuring powers to establish the prospective council. Waiting for the next sittings, to pass the legislation will exacerbate the situation. The sooner these appointments are made, the sooner they can get on with the many tasks associated with restructuring the council.
Similarly, the current council, the Victoria Daly Shire Council, is also in limbo. They know there will be a new council established over some of their area. However, they cannot get on with their new task of divesting services to the new council and refocusing their services on the remaining area until we establish the transition committee. This committee will deal with these matters, and the sooner we have a transition committee and a new prospective council, the sooner the process can be completed. This will allow two strong and vibrant councils to provide services to their constituents in place of the current one.
To get this process happening and provide clarity to the people affected by these decisions, this legislation must be passed now as urgent legislation. A delay would mean another three months of uncertainty, doubt and hardship for all Victoria Daly Shire Council constituents, and council staff in particular.
With each passing day, the local government system, introduced by the previous government, continues to further marginalise already disadvantaged Territorians living in regional and remote communities. It is time to put an end to that disenfranchisement put in place by the Labor government and return a voice to Territorians residing in communities. That is what the Country Liberals government stands for, and I am very proud to be part of it.
This bill will provide us with the powers to get on with the job of giving Territorians in regional and remote communities what they have overwhelmingly advised government they want. The powers include establishing a prospective council to start the transition process of the area that will be created by new boundaries to form a new council area which must be done without delay. This legislation is not something new. The previous government introduced a similar bill in 2007 that also sought to restructure local government and which led to the creation of the current shires.
I invite all honourable members to contact my office to arrange a full briefing on this legislation by the Department of Local Government and Regions staff.
This is very important legislation. It is crucial for the restructure of the local government system. It will go a long way in righting the wrongs the previous Labor government did to Territorians residing in regional and remote communities. They took their voice away from local governance matters. It will help provide some certainty to the staff who know there are plans to divide the shire into two councils, but as yet have no idea how this will impact on their jobs. The bill does not in itself change anything for the local government system. What the bill does is give me the power I need to put in place the necessary processes to effect those changes. It is urgent so we can move forward and give people certainty into the future.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): It will not surprise the minister and members opposite that the opposition opposes this motion to progress the new Local Government Amendment Bill on urgency because we do not believe there is a case for urgency. The only urgency appears to be saving the political necks of members opposite who have made certain commitments and deals with certain people. They are not interested in consulting, let alone with us, with key stakeholders, people who live in these regions, key stakeholders like the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory. The prospect of the member for Fong Lim having more power is a scary thought.
Just under two months ago, on 10 October, we had a debate in this House in line with proper process for amendment to the Local Government Act. That debate related to the establishment of local authorities and the renaming and rebadging of shires as regional councils, and a consequence of consultation with the government’s local government reference groups and bush communities. There was a commitment to consult and provide time, yet suddenly we find it is on urgency and needs to be rushed through.
It is pretty typical of this chaotic and dysfunctional government we see opposite us with ad hoc policy on the run. Here we are, with the third Local Government minister in a little over a year, and I wonder, like with the strategic Indigenous reserves and education policy matters, if there are a few divisions internally on your side.
I look forward, when this debate eventually comes on, to hearing from all members opposite, including those who represent shires and bush electorates, and to hearing how extensive the consultation has been and why it is so important this motion goes through on urgency.
During the last sittings, much was made about the consultation by the minister and how a sound consultative process had underpinned the changes being sought in that bill. That will not happen this time, will it?
We did have a good and informed debate, as we should, about the merits of those amendments. We went to the committee stage, we had many questions, amendments to important legislation relating to the third sphere of government in the Northern Territory, and the bill was passed after further amendment in committee stage. That is how a democracy works. This is how this parliament works – proper and informed consideration of the bills brought before us. The laws that come out of this place do not just belong to the political party in power on the day; they are presented for proper and responsible consideration by all members of this Legislative Assembly.
There is capacity to bring legislation to debate on urgency, but that is a departure from the usual and preferred practice. It is a diversion from the norm for some very compelling reasons, and we are not convinced there are compelling reasons here. If there were compelling reasons, it would be something around the fact the legislation is required on urgency to prevent some immediate harm to the community. It may be used in a situation where the Territory would suffer financial disadvantage if legislation was not passed by a certain date, or if we are part of a national agreement requiring action by a certain time. We can turn to advice on parliamentary process, such as our green handbook, the fifth edition of the House of Representatives Practice, which guides our national parliament. It says that consideration of debate on urgency may be influenced by factors such as:
There is a principle that debate on urgency is not the preferred path for controversial legislation and a suggestion of the principle of agreement on the need for urgency. There is no such agreement whatsoever, and this is deviating from the norm; then again, this is typical of the dysfunctional government we see opposite.
Even if we turn to our own standing orders, Standing Order 179 provides for consideration of bills on urgency. It reads:
Exactly what hardship is being caused, and to whom, needs to be explained by the minister. He did not explain that. It is all about political expediency, about fulfilling promises they have made to certain people without committing to a process of consultation, explaining how they will fund these boundary changes and what sort of notice they have taken of the financial sustainability report that was produced by Deloitte. There was no mention of that. That, of course, is because it is not about hardship; it is about convenience for the minister for Local Government and an arrogant abuse of parliamentary process.
We now know what the bill is about – the purpose of the bill in terms of boundary changes following a recent meeting at Peppimenarti and a commitment that was made to a new local government authority in the Wadeye region. I just wonder what level of commitment, given some of the information I have received from the Victoria Daly shire about how they will be involved in this –they have not been involved in the discussion from what I understand.
The Chief Minister said on ABC radio as recently as 6 November that people he had met with at Peppimenarti had decided they would like a new local government boundary between Port Keats, or Wadeye as most people now respectfully refer to the community, and Daly River. He said:
Is that what this is about? CLP short cuts to make the Chief Minister look good on the back of his Tiwi land grab, allegedly in the interests of Indigenous economic development.
The Chief Minister also said, in the same interview in response to a question from Victoria Daly Shire councillor, Steve Hennessy, who I heard on radio that morning, that the government was working out the structural changes into the future.
In our last sittings, the minister spoke of his aim of having new regional councils by July 2014. The Chief Minister now says he wants the change by 1 January. This government is all about cutting corners. It is about sheer arrogance in government. Standing Order 178 is there for a reason; it stands to require a reasonable time – one month for the Assembly as a whole to research and consider proposed legislation once it is tabled, time to consult with constituents and industry stakeholders and to engender informed debate and lawmaking. That is the reason we are all here.
We do not support this motion. We strongly reject the call from the Local Government minister to have this bill dealt with on urgency during these sittings.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, I support this motion. There has been a commitment to separate the Daly shire, and when we talk about consultation, the hypocrisy from the other side is extravagant, is it not? The now opposition created documents prior to the shires being set up. They talk about us not allowing consultation; we have since had extensive consultation, an election, and the people more than spoke as to what they wanted.
For the Chief Minister to visit Peppimenarti is the final outcome of that – make a commitment and put a date to it. I applaud him for that, and believe we need this legislation put through as soon as possible so there is some clarity, not just for the people there, but also for the staff. To wait for the next sittings, which I believe are in February, is absurd. We need to get real in this House and do what the people elected us to do: introduce legislation which makes their lives better.
I fully support this motion. The reason this government was elected was because of the inaction of those opposite.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I make it clear, even to the member for Daly, I did not support the previous amalgamations of council. If he was here he would have noticed 40 or 50 cars going around this building twice until we convinced the government to scrap the amalgamation of Litchfield. I never agreed with the process and always believed it was wrong, because what happened was predetermined. I attended the meetings in Litchfield and I know what it is like when governments decide what will happen, but that is no excuse for avoiding due process.
The last time we had an urgency motion, from memory, was when a lawyer found licences to discharge waste water – which was confused by the member for Fong Lim as something to do with Mataranka water – were not legal and if legislation was not changed, Power and Water would have been in breach of the act. That is urgency, this is not. This is debating due process. We are a government, a parliament, which respects processes; we do not abuse processes and this is an abuse of them.
Local government needs to be respected as well. You have not even shown us the decency of putting this bill forward first so we can read what we are supposed to be debating on urgency. My understanding is it gives you the power of a dictator – you have full power to scrap people’s jobs and kill a council. Does that mean Darwin City Council could be scrapped tomorrow if you say yes? Could you sack the Mayor of Darwin under your act? We do not know. You want to put something so serious through within a week, and we cannot talk to local government about whether this is what they want.
This is not just about Wadeye, Maningrida or Groote Eylandt; this is about some fundamental, basic rules for how local government is run in the Northern Territory. Local government should be run in a democratic way. The people who get rid of elected members are the people who voted for them, not some minister in Darwin. Your laws, I understand, will give you the power to do that, and you want us to believe that type of thing should be rushed through? There are some fundamental issues here which are not being pushed through because of some promise you made to some people – 100? What is the population of the area? Probably 3500, 4000, maybe more – one hundred people said they want a new council?
I am not against boundary changes. You change one boundary; what effect does that have on another boundary? You do not know. ‘We are going to set up a prospective council.’ Who will run that? Will it be like the old councils the opposition put together at the start of council reform, where they brought in people from interstate, paid them nearly $0.25m and said, ‘They are in charge’?
There are many issues which need to be discussed, and you want to put it through on the basis of ‘uncertainty’. If I was on the council, I would be uncertain about what type of legislation is being put forward and the future of my local government. You say there is ‘doubt’! What doubt? At the moment, they exist. There is no doubt about them, they exist. If you put doubt into their minds, of course they will start to fear. You say there is hardship. Hang on! Why would you change the boundaries until you have an understanding of the viability of those councils?
Your previous Local Government minister said in her media release:
I have not seen stage two of the reforms yet. Is this it? You are going to rush this through today.
That is from the government. Are you breaking that promise? That is a promise from the government; you have not done it. You are going to shove this thing through at a rate of knots when you have not done the work. If you change the boundaries you may end up with a worse local government situation than you have, because viability and how they raise money was one of the major problems highlighted in the Deloitte inquiry. Why would you change boundaries before you know what the viability of those new councils will be? You might make the Wadeye council perfectly viable because most of the ratepayers live there. You might have stuffed up the other part – Yarralin, Kalkarindji, Timber Creek, Pine Creek – and they may no longer be viable. Who has done a report on that? ‘No, we have to rush this thing through. I am going to take over the place; I am the king, the King of Fong Lim!’
You have powers in that act which basically give you – I do not know whether you could even appeal against what you say. Are there any appeal rights if you say a council or councillor is sacked?
You are rushing through something where no one has had a chance – the Local Government Association knows there is something on the cards to change boundaries. That is one thing, and I have heard that. I have heard the member for Daly say it, but that is not what this argument is about. You are asking people, on short notice, to support a piece of legislation which we have not read, which has, as I understand – one member said to me, ‘You will go ballistic’. My understanding is it gives you almost unfettered powers as the minister. Surely, that is not something this government really wants to put its hand up for without due consideration.
We have spoken about reviews of the council. We have the Advance Planning Bill the minister has put out for consultation. You are going to push through a very important piece of legislation that gives you wide-sweeping powers based on, ‘We need it without delay. Get on with what they want.’
Have you spoken to the little lady under the mango tree? You know the residents are the voters in local government, not clan groups. They are all equal. This is not a cultural thing. This is local government; it is the provision of essential services to people, whether they are at the top of the pile or the bottom. They are the voters for local government and they should be respected. If you have a meeting and a barbecue with 100 people and say, ‘That is what they want’, it may be what they want, but have you tested it amongst the ordinary people? Have you given them information about it? You should go there and inform people of your process. You should say how you will make this council viable, or will you keep supplying them, as the Northern Territory government, with a lot of money to prop up these councils? There are big issues here and you are going to take them on because you made a political promise you would give these people a new council.
I do not have any problem with boundary changes, if they stack up. That is why I put forward a motion looking at a boundary commission. This is what that type of document should be like. This is a report from the Local Government Reform Commission in Queensland. It performed a lot of work. There were independent people on that commission and it took time to do it so it came back with a report the government could hang its hat on. If you change Victoria Daly Shire, what happens to MacDonnell Shire or Central Desert Shire? What happens to shires that back on Victoria Daly Shire? If you take Maningrida out - I believe it is in West Arnhem Shire - what happens then? Is West Arnhem Shire no longer viable? Have you done those studies? ‘We will go down this path on urgency because the people want it without delay.’ You would hope people would decide what they want when they have been informed, and I do not think you have informed people about what is going on. You have just said, ‘We promised you this, we will do it’. It sounds like you are just going to do it, come hell or high water. If that is good government, I will eat my hat, and if that is good process, I will eat my hat; that is two hats. This is getting a bit like amateur half hour.
Mr Elferink: You would just hang a hat on the report.
MR WOOD: That is right, yes. I expect the minister and the department to act in a professional manner; the way Queensland did. Whether you support amalgamation or not, they went down a path which was professional. You are not going down a professional path. This has political hairs hanging off it; it is about the next election. It is not about the good administration of local government. It is not about viability; you have not done the work to show it. I would agree if you said, ‘We have done the work and we will now introduce that to parliament and we can bring these boundary changes to parliament. We have discussed it with the people. We have looked at the viability of these changes and have worked out ways they can increase their revenue.’ I would say ‘good on you’.
What you are going to do is introduce a bit of dictatorial legislation which gives you almighty power to do what you like. That sort of legislation needs to go to local government. You should treat local government with respect. I know you have spoken to them but you have not spoken to them about the details of the bill because no one has seen it. We will see it when this debate is finished. Why will you not give that legislation to local government first and let them discuss it? It affects more than Wadeye, Maningrida and Groote Eylandt. It affects every local government in the Northern Territory and they should have time to comment before you rush it through.
There is no urgency on this bill. This is pure politics in the party sense, not the pure politics in the way we operate in this House. It has been done for party political reasons to look good. It makes a sham of open and transparent government.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I will keep it quick. I will read something to you from 30 August 2007.
It is all right for the other side to whinge when they did it themselves.
Ms Lawrie: On amendments.
Mr ELFERINK: This is an amendment; he is bringing forward an amendment. You guys are shonky as hell. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Goodness gracious me, to hear the hypocrisy from members opposite is incredible. You guys set the benchmark and you are now whinging; good luck to you. I support the motion.
Mr TOLLNER (Local Government and Regions): Madam Speaker, I thank everybody who has spoken on this motion of urgency: the members for Nhulunbuy, Nelson, Daly and my good friend, the member for Port Darwin. I appreciate all of your comments and I will respond to some of the points raised.
I can understand there is some reluctance, in principle, to support an urgency motion. Generally, that is the case with any urgency motion; people are reluctant to support it. The Minister for Health just said to me, ‘They did not even want to support the urgency on mandatory treatment, despite the fact it saved lives’. The opposition kicked and screamed and said, ‘No, you cannot rush this through on urgency’. That is what oppositions do. I think the opposition wants us to do nothing, to make no changes.
In their world, the way they did things was the best way of doing things, and I applaud you for thinking that. You could not get elected doing things you do not believe in. That is what you believe, but we received a clear mandate from the Northern Territory to change local government. These changes have been 12 months in the making. There has been significant consultation across the entire Northern Territory, and the Opposition Leader now says, ‘Oh, no, let us have another review. Let us have some more consultation. Let us do anything that will stop us from doing something.’
They are all about doing nothing, similar to the member for Nelson. Member for Nelson, I am not suggesting that urgency motions are the order of the day. I sincerely disagree with you that I am set up as some sort of quasi-dictator. That is clearly not the case. At the end of the day, we all answer to this parliament and to the people. To think we will have a dictatorship anywhere in the Northern Territory is ridiculous. I ask you to think on that and on the role you play here and the chance of any one of us becoming a dictator in the current system we have; it is ludicrous to expect that.
There is some urgency on this, and the point made by the member for Daly is pertinent: people are expecting change; they are looking towards a change, but there are other people who are sitting in the middle of it where everything is up in the air, particularly the workers. It is interesting that people on the other side consider themselves the great champions of the workers, but in this case, they have no regard for them. They do not care that the future is uncertain for the workers of the Victoria Daly Shire. They know something is in the wind. They know there will be two councils created from their one, but they do not know what their future holds, and that is what we are trying to resolve for them. That is why there is urgency.
When you find a place that almost unanimously decides it wants to be on its own, we have said, as a government, we will listen to people and, where practical, will respect their points of view and implement what they want.
That is clearly not the view of the team on the other side because that is not the way they handled local government. It was done with very little consultation. People were not happy, and at the last election they paid the consequence for those decisions they made in the past.
However, there is nothing to suggest we are doing anything wrong. I will repeat my invitation; my door is open for anyone in the opposition, or the member for Nelson, to have a briefing on this bill. I will ensure I have the most senior people in the Department of Local Government to answer all your questions and provide information to you. There is nothing unusual about this motion and I commend the motion to the House.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 13 Noes 9
Ms Anderson Ms Fyles
Mr Chandler Mr Gunner
Mr Elferink Ms Lawrie
Ms Finocchiaro Mr McCarthy
Mr Giles Ms Manison
Mr Higgins Mr Vatskalis
Mr Kurrupuwu Mr Vowles
Mrs Lambley Ms Walker
Ms Lee Mr Wood
Mr Mills
Mrs Price
Mr Styles
Mr Tollner
Motion agreed to
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr TOLLNER (Local Government and Regions): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
It is a priority of this government to give a voice back to people in regional and remote communities and to listen to what is required to strengthen the existing local governance arrangements in these communities. We know changes are required to the local government system. This government has moved quickly to commence real change. We will be transitioning large shire councils into regional councils, and it is anticipated local authorities will be established and functional by July 2014.
There are still further changes which need to happen and we are continuing to consult. We are also assessing the implications of changes to local government including financial sustainability. We are committed to making responsible decisions. In order to change the local government structure in the future, to create new councils where they are needed, and to enable all the ancillary arrangements to be made it is necessary for me, as the Minister for Local Government and Regions, to have the power to make restructuring orders.
I am pleased to introduce the Local Government Amendment (Restructuring) Bill 2013 which will give me the powers I need to restructure local government as appropriate. It is not new to this House that such powers are required when changes to the system of local government are being made. The previous government gave themselves similar powers when they were creating shire councils. As the Minister for Local Government and Regions, I will be able to make various types of restructuring orders including orders to abolish or constitute a council or local government area.
It may also be necessary for me to suspend or terminate the term of office of any member of a council or to call, cancel, defer, or suspend an election. I will be able to direct a council to take action, if necessary, and I will be able to apportion assets and liabilities between councils.
The powers given to me by this legislation also include the power to create a prospective council. This will be an entity which can eventually become a new council. This will ensure the new entity is clearly evident and transparent during its development. Such an entity will be able to start making all the necessary arrangements for transition. Wherever a new council is to be established, I will establish a transition advisory committee with relevant stakeholders so, as plans for a new council develop and progress, the transition committee will be providing guidance and advice.
To ensure that members of the public are aware of any restructuring order made, the order will be published in the Gazette as well as a newspaper circulating widely in the local government area affected by the order. Restructuring orders will also be tabled in the Legislative Assembly within six sitting days after they are made.
The process for establishing a new council will include establishing a prospective council and transition committee. The transition committee will be composed of key stakeholders. There will be a manager and acting chief executive officer appointed to the prospective council. The acting chief executive officer will be answerable to the manager who must report to me regularly on the progress of establishing the new council. When the fully-fledged council commences there will be elections and the new council members will use a normal recruitment process to recruit and choose their new chief executive.
Using a prospective council, many of the administrative tasks can be undertaken to form a new council without interfering with the business of the current council. The manager of a prospective council will meet regularly with the transition committee and seek their advice. The acting chief executive officer will be able to organise things such as a common seal, bank accounts, accounts with suppliers, business systems, and IT and communications networks. The acting chief executive officer will prepare a plan, budget, and staffing structure in consultation with the transition committee and the manager.
One of the first things that will be done is the initiation of a website for the prospective council so regular updates on the progress of establishment will be available to the public.
The powers contained in this bill are necessarily broad and they are critical for local government reform but these powers can only be used for the purposes of the reforms. There is a sunset clause so that the powers will expire on 1 January, 2016. I am proud that this government is moving forward and fixing the governance problems that have grown in the regional and remote areas of the Northern Territory. I commend the bill to honourable members and I table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice) (by leave): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the two bills titled Advance Personal Planning Bill 2013 (Serial 41) and Advance Personal Planning Consequential Amendments Bill (Serial 54):
1) together be debated, and in one motion be put in regard to the second readings, the committees report stage and the third readings of the bills and
2) be considered separately in the committee of the whole.
The reason I am moving this motion now and have not done so earlier is these bills were introduced at separate stages in two different sittings of this Assembly; they are, however, inextricably intertwined. I have signalled my intent to the independent and the opposition and they have initially indicated their support for this cognation of the two bills and, therefore, had little more to say on the matter other than to say that it is good common sense.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Mr Deputy Speaker, we welcome the very sensible approach from the Attorney-General. The two bills do have the same policy intention and the debate really is uniform to the two bills in whether we support or do not support them. I believe I can indicate to the member we do support, but we will get to that debate soon. A sensible approach is to have one debate and for the two bills to be read together. We appreciate the approach from the Attorney-General and look forward to debating the bills.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I also support what has been put forward. It is common sense, which is refreshing after the last debate we had. I look forward to the debate we will have on advance planning.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank honourable members for their consideration of the issue and I appreciate the support.
Motion agreed to.
Continued from 29 August 2013 and 17 October 2013.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, on behalf of our side, not only do we support the policy intention of this bill to allow people greater control over their lives if they face a situation where they cannot make decisions for themselves, we also support the genesis of the bill and the consultative process that led to its development and the development of the bills we are debating today.
The bills continue the work of the previous government with the living wills reforms. People of any age, at any time, face the possibility of losing the ability to make decisions about their future. This is not a situation confined to later life, though as we see, as people age, it is something you do think about in later life. This bill is for all. Tragically, through a car accident or the example of the sporting injury given by the minister, it is quite possible for a healthy Territorian to be robbed of their ability to make decisions, though I do not want to be too alarming. A person can choose to do nothing and family will look after you as they do now. However, there can be times, as we have seen, when difficult decisions need to be made. That rare possibility can tear families apart, and having the clarity and certainty of an advance personal plan is an important option, an option this bill will provide.
There are two bills in relation to this legislation; the original bill and the consequential amendment bill. We are now debating them together, and I thank the Attorney-General for his sensible approach. The policy intention of the two bills is the same, and the consequential amendments make sound changes to the original bill based on further feedback which was sought.
The consequential amendments have emerged as a result of consultation on the original bill. I commend the Attorney-General for the extensive consultation he has undertaken in relation to this bill. A draft bill was released for comment and forums were held across the Northern Territory. Submissions were received from bodies such as the Law Society, NAAJA, COTA, as well as many others. Their feedback was taken into account in the finalised bill and the consequential amendments we have before us. The consultation and feedback process stands in stark contrast to the approach of the CLP in other areas and legislation. In relation to another bill to be debated during these sittings, the Alcohol Protection Orders Bill, no consultation has taken place and the Chief Minister defended this by saying consultation starts when the bill is introduced to parliament. He also said that, regardless of any feedback, he would not be considering any amendments, although I just received a piece of paper from the Chief Minister which I will have to look at in detail later.
I am glad the Attorney-General has completely ignored his Chief Minister’s approach to consultation and legislative reform. I encourage the Chief Minister to follow the approach the Attorney-General has taken to this bill. It is because of this consultative approach we have a very good bill before us, a bill we are happy to support. Consultation is not hard. It can be as simple as the question asked on the consultation paper for this bill:
It is not that hard. It would not have been hard for the Chief Minister to ask for similar feedback on his Alcohol Protection Orders Bill. Advance personal planning is an important area, but addressing the skyrocketing rates of violent crime we are witnessing in the Northern Territory is as important, if not more so to many and should receive the same attention. If we can consult on this legislation, then surely we can consult on legislation that pretends to address the most important issue we face.
This bill was introduced and then held over while the consequential amendments were drafted and introduced; the Attorney-General has done the right thing in making sure this legislation is correct. As we as a legislature develop and debate legislation, it is important we look at the processes that lead to good legislation. In this case, if the Attorney-General has undertaken an extensive process and the legislation is sound, the Attorney-General can take great confidence as he passes this bill that he has community support for it.
We so often have to come back to this House to fix legislation, close loopholes and make clarifications. Much of the legislation we are debating during these sittings falls into that category. There can be reasonable grounds for a loophole to emerge after legislation is passed, but it is best to get it as right as we can the first time. That will only happen if we consult, welcome feedback and ask for feedback – if the government asks for feedback on its legislation.
The development of this legislation compared to the development of the alcohol protection orders legislation should be a legal case study on the importance of consultation. It is clear proof that consultation leads to better legislation. The head in the sand approach of the Chief Minister has led to flawed legislation. I once again congratulate the Attorney-General for standing up to the Chief Minister and insisting the community gets a say. Unfortunately, the alcohol protection legislation is fundamentally flawed. The approach of the Attorney-General should be taken by the Chief Minister. The CLP should hold off passage of the Alcohol Protection Orders Bill, like they have done with the Advance Personal Planning Bill, until they have consulted and taken views of experts, including the police association, into account.
Interestingly, as I spoke with stakeholders regarding this bill and the Alcohol Protection Orders Bill, they have all rejected the Alcohol Protection Orders Bill and urged me to encourage the opposition to oppose it. However, during those same meetings, they urged me to make sure we support the Advance Personal Planning Bill. The different approaches to the consultative process resulted in very different responses from stakeholders.
I now turn to the specifics of this bill. Advance personal planning is an example of how implementing a simple principle can be incredibly complicated. Like much legislation, the intent is simple, but drafting legislation that takes into account all the complexities and different potential scenarios the legislation may one day have to address is a very difficult task. I thank the representatives from Justice who provided the briefing on the legislation. It is clear they have gone to a great deal of effort to try to translate the intent into comprehensive legislation that accommodates any and all situations that may arise.
An individual can currently provide power of attorney to a person to look after their affairs if they no longer have the capacity to do so. This only applies to financial and property matters. There is no legislation which deals with future binding decisions in relation to health and the provision of care. This bill sets out to achieve this. People will essentially be able to provide medical powers of attorney to a chosen person.
The bill provides for three things: advance consent decision, advance care statements and the appointment of people to make decisions. The Attorney-General’s second reading speech goes through these three things in considerable detail. Advance consent decisions are legal documents for the making of future healthcare decisions; these decisions let people know how they have decided to be treated and what decisions they may have made for antibiotics or radiation treatment.
The bill clearly outlines what decisions can be made in advance and what cannot. It outlines what decisions may still require a court order.
Advance care statements are written statements that mainly relate to the future provision of care and personal arrangements and must be followed by all decision-makers. They are like value statements; they establish what a person believes on a broad range of issues and provide guidance for either appointed decision-makers or, if no decision-maker is appointed, their carers, health providers or others who may need to know.
Appointed decision-makers must be over 18 and are appointed by a competent adult to be trusted to make decisions for them should they lose capacity to do so. The bill clearly outlines decision-making principles. Decision-makers must comply with the aforementioned advance consent decisions and advance care statements. It should be noted advance consent decisions and advance care statements can be made without decision-makers being appointed. In this case, the decisions and statements apply as a general statement.
Decisions of the appointed decision-maker carry the same legal clout as if they were made by the individual. The bill provides for serial decision-makers; for example, someone may appoint their spouse and this cascades down to their children should their spouse pass away, or one may choose to cascade their appointed decision-makers.
This can be established in advance and it could be a very sensible thing to do in case the circumstances that see someone incapable of making personal decisions have also, unfortunately, occurred to their appointed decision-maker. It is possible to appoint different decision-makers for different decisions. It is possible that someone prefers their son to look after their health and care decisions and their daughter to look after their financial and legal matters, or the other way around. These are examples of the flexibility built into this bill which address the fact every situation is different. These are examples of appropriate flexibility and law that arise from consultation.
The bill contains several supporting provisions that, essentially, put in place proper processes around the three main components. I will not go through them all, but they are standard protocols around witness statements and the approval of complying forms. Of course, given this bill deals with people for whom it has been determined have lost their decision-making capacity, there are provisions which ensure this determination is subject to a robust process and immune from potential abuse or misuse.
The bill assumes decision-making capacity until the contrary is demonstrated. The bill takes into account that determining capacity is not necessarily a static situation and fluctuations in capacity can occur. Any disputes in relation to this must be resolved by a court, and this is appropriate.
Sadly, there is the possibility that at some stage in the future a person may seek to misuse or exploit the provisions of this bill for their own gain. This bill seeks to provide an easy approach for the 99% of responsible people, while at the same time seeks to inoculate the legislation from abuse and exploitation.
The bill provides for a central registry, which is important as it provides quick access when a situation arises. However, it does not rule out a properly written advance personal plan if it conforms but is not registered – if someone has made their decisions properly known then it should not be ruled out because it has not been registered.
I strongly recommend that people register their advance personal plans. There is the situation of how this bill has to interact with existing legislation, and for decisions around land the advance personal plan must be registered.
No matter when you make your advance personal plan to ensure your wishes are honoured, make sure people know you have one. Please register it, make it available in your home in an obvious spot, or a spot where you have let people know it will be.
When someone is prescribing future medical decisions, the dilemma arises that emergency medical attention may be required prior to medical professionals having access to these consent plans. It is not realistic that an ambulance officer in an emergency will delay lifesaving efforts until such time as they have checked it complies with the advance personal plan. I know it has become a habit – and we discussed this during the briefing – that if you have a health situation that means you have considered this in advance. One of the things you may do is leave your advance consent decisions on the fridge, with the fridge being a common spot in most homes. First respondents are aware of this and check, and if they have the time when responding, will ensure they abide by those plans.
The bill accommodates the concerns of medical professionals. Medical professionals can only be at fault if they knowingly act in contravention of a medical plan. The vast majority of plans will not preclude any lifesaving efforts. I am comfortable the concerns of medical professionals have been accommodated in this bill.
As the Attorney-General pointed out in his second reading speech, these concerns were raised and addressed through the consultation process. I am comfortable the provisions of this bill make it compatible across jurisdictions which, of course, can and will occur.
In conclusion, I quote the Attorney-General from the conclusion of his second reading speech:
If only all important legislation was. I hope the Chief Minister is listening. We support this bill.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Health): Mr Deputy Speaker, I congratulate the Attorney-General for bringing this important legislation forward.
I take up on some of the comments made by the member for Fannie Bay. He talked about the way in which the Attorney-General went about a lengthy and thorough consultation process. It is very interesting he picked up on that because where the former Labor government went terribly wrong was that it took them the best part of 11 years to come up with legislation which attempted to cover the contents of this Advance Personal Planning Bill. They got so bogged down in consultation they took it to a whole new level – consultation, consultation, consultation, and they did not know when to cut it off.
I applaud the Attorney-General for taking just 15 months to come up with a bill which has included a thorough and considerable consultation process and have it before parliament for debate in such a short period of time. The former Labor government, in 11 years, did not even get to that final stage of getting it through parliament.
Once again, we are talking about a government that is about action and getting things done, going through the processes as thoroughly and comprehensively as we can, but getting it through parliament, which is where Labor came undone, particularly in the case of this suite of bills. They tried to put forward a bill called the Adult Personal Planning Bill, which did not get there because of their procrastination and inability to carry things through to fruition.
These bills aim to modernise legislation to allow adults to make decisions about their future needs should they lose the capacity to make their own decisions. It includes people of all ages, as the member for Fannie Bay mentioned. It is not just about elderly people; it is about sick, frail and disabled people who want to put their decisions on the public record. This is so that in the case of coming to a point in time when they cannot make their own decisions, they are very clearly laid out for their loved ones or the people they choose to nominate as their decision-makers.
These bills will establish clear principles to ensure decisions made on a person’s behalf are made in the adult’s best interests and comply with the wishes of that person – incredibly humane, caring and considerate of that person as a human being, and most dignifying.
These bills ensure Territorians will have their personal decisions valued, allowing them to be always at the heart of decision-making with matters relating to their future. The former Labor government could not get to this space. After 11 years in government, they were unable to come up with what is in place across most jurisdictions in Australia. In just 15 months, our bright, energetic, motivated Attorney-General came up with this legislation which should be passed very soon through this parliament. Once again, I sincerely applaud the hard work and competence of our Attorney-General.
These bills address three key matters once a person becomes incapable of making their own decisions. Firstly, an advance consent decision: an advance personal plan with direction about future health decisions made on a person’s behalf. This covers all healthcare including health services, emergency treatment and palliative care. Secondly, advance care statements: a statement outlining a person’s views, wishes and beliefs as the basis on which a person will make decisions on their behalf. Thirdly, decision-makers: decision-makers can be appointed to make decisions on a wide range of matters including property, financial affairs, health and other lifestyle matters.
This legislation will provide Territorians with a voice about their future life management decisions, providing similar rights to those existing in all other jurisdictions across Australia. The Northern Territory has dragged the chain, thanks to the former Labor government.
My parents, who both passed away just a few months ago, had similar provisions in place through the New South Wales system. It was most dignifying for them to know my sister and I could follow through with their wishes about how they wanted to be treated in the latter stages of their life and how they wanted their affairs managed. They knew my sister and I were capable and confident their wishes could be adhered to and respected. It is a most dignifying thing that should have been in place for many years.
It is a significant reform and one that took a change of government and, as I said, a passionate Attorney-General to implement.
Whilst recognising what this legislation will do and how it will benefit Territorians, it is also important to address issues outside the scope of these bills, namely the continuing arrangements under the Adult Guardianship Act. Adult guardianship gives someone the legal responsibility to make decisions for someone else over the age of 18 who is unable to make reasonable judgments or decisions about their daily living because of an intellectual disability. The Adult Guardianship Act outlines the processes for adults currently the subject of an adult guardianship order.
The Northern Territory government acknowledges the current system is in desperate need of modernisation, something the opposition again failed to achieve in 11 years. This is an outdated piece of legislation. It has been sitting there with very little genuine effort made to update it during the 11 years of Labor.
No system is perfect, but we understand the concerns expressed by participants and their families regarding the current processes. We understand that timing of decisions and the process can be improved. We would also like to see greater clarity and certainty in decision-making within the adult guardianship system. The Department of Health is developing options to improve the system. We are working on this now, and in 2014 this parliament will be deliberating over dramatic changes to this piece of legislation, this area of need that is currently managed by the Department of Health.
Time to consider how best to deliver improved adult guardianship arrangements in the Territory was required for two reasons. Firstly, this government is embarking on a significant reform of tribunals and administrative decision appeal mechanisms in the Northern Territory. The Attorney-General is currently exploring ways to ensure Territorians get quicker, easier and cheaper access to administrative decision reviews and tribunal determinations. This important reform will impact upon how we progress adult guardianship modernisation. It is important we take the time to fully consider how the two reforms complement each other to ensure we get it right.
Secondly, the introduction of the important Advance Personal Planning Bill and Advance Personal Planning (Consequential Amendments) Bill also impacts on the way the government modernises the Adult Guardianship Act. The model Labor failed to implement in its 11 years in office had both areas coming together. Given the changes to tribunals and the progression of this bill, I have sought advice from the Department of Health on how to best modernise the adult guardianship system. Once this advice is with government, and after we have conducted a short, sharp consultation to ensure the proposals are in accordance with the wishes of people under guardianship orders and their families, I am confident we will be able to say more about modernisation of the system in this place next year.
I applaud the Attorney-General for bringing forward this important reform. It will provide the opportunity for Territorians to make plans that cover off on important matters in the event they become mentally incapacitated. People in the Northern Territory have been waiting for this reform for a long time and I am sure we will hear feedback from across the Territory from these people. It means a lot to people to know they can put these provisions in place should they become mentally incapacitated through whatever means. I know the Attorney-General has consulted widely on these changes and they are warmly welcomed by stakeholders and the community. Similarly, I look forward to returning to this House in the new year and outlining the government’s plans to modernise the adult guardianship system in the Northern Territory.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I also support the advance planning bills before us. This plan will line up with similar legislation in other states, and it will clearly set out three important parts in the advance personal plan: advance consent decisions, the advance care statement and the appointment of one or more persons to make decisions for that person.
Advance care decisions relate to decisions around healthcare. The advance care statement will deal more with administrative type decisions, such as banking, property ownership, day-to-day living matters, etcetera. Decision-makers can be one or more adults who are competent and who the person trusts to make decisions when they are not able to. They can be appointed on any terms the person wants and can be general or specific. The bill sets out certain matters that cannot be included in the decision-making process: the power to vote, divorce, marriage and consent to adoption.
The bill sets out a description of what is not deemed to be impaired decision capacity, something that is a very important part of the basis of this bill. This allows for people who have a temporary or fluctuating impairment.
The bill sets out the role of the local court. There is no doubt that when dealing with matters such as advance planning there can be some emotion and delicate paths to tread when there are disputes or grey areas that need an independent decision-maker. It can make decisions about whether someone has impaired decision making or decide on the meaning of an advance personal care plan and a range of other things.
The Local Court has a range of other powers which, if appealed, can go to the Supreme Court. The bill also has compliance and enforcement provisions which are essential to make sure someone is not falsely representing to be a decision-maker or pressuring someone improperly to make a plan. That is also a very important part of this bill.
Divisions three and four are also very important. They deal with the role of healthcare providers, nurses and paramedics and the protections they need in carrying out their normal work. The care of people when their decision-making becomes impaired by accident or as one gets older through sickness means our healthcare providers have to make decisions that are not always easily legislated in an exact formula because we are dealing with many varied and personal circumstances. Though there may be personal plans such as ‘do not resuscitate’, those plans may sometimes be unknown, forgotten or, in an emergency, there may be no time to check; there needs to be legislation which covers these circumstances.
One of the more difficult areas is an advance directive refusing medical treatment; however, as mentioned in the second reading, the legal effect in the Northern Territory of such directives refusing medical treatment is not that clear. The second reading quotes a case in New South Wales and says Justice McDougall determined common law allows for a competent adult to make an advance directive refusing life sustaining treatment. I would like to highlight how difficult this area is to negotiate, and I will read two articles which, although long, are important in the context of the debate on the bill.
The first is a response I received from the Attorney-General’s department, and I thank members of the department for the briefing and the answer to the question I asked. I asked how food and water fit in with the definitions of treatment under the Advance Personal Planning Bill 2013. Does the bill provide for a situation like the child in the USA, whose parents refused artificial feeding and watering like the Quinlan matter? The answer was In Re Quinlan, 70 N.J. 10 (1976), a landmark 1975 court case in the United States in which the parents of a woman who was kept alive by artificial means were allowed to arrange for her removal from artificial ventilation. Karen Ann Quinlan was 21 years old in 1975. After a night of drinking alcohol and ingesting tranquilisers, Ms Quinlan passed out and ceased breathing for two 15-minute periods. After it was determined she was in a persistent vegetative state, her father wished to remove her from the artificial ventilator.
Ms Quinlan’s primary physician and the hospital both refused. Ms Quinlan’s father filed a suit in the Superior Court in Morris County, New Jersey on 12 September 1975 to be appointed as Ms Quinlan’s guardian so he could act on her behalf. The Court denied his request on 10 November 1975. Mr Quinlan then appealed the decision and the New Jersey Supreme Court, on 31 March 1976, held that he could authorise the cessation of ventilation and the hospital was bound to proceed with this order. After being removed from the ventilator, Ms Quinlan continued to breathe until her death several years later from pneumonia.
Assuming exactly the same factual situation has occurred as in the Quinlan case, advance personal planning would not apply. If that situation occurred in the NT, the parents would need to make an application to be appointed as guardians under the Adult Guardianship Act. However, if you assume the daughter had prepared an advance personal plan under clause eight of the bill and had appointed her father as a decision-maker in relation to any matters, the father would have authority to make the decision to remove artificial life support, including artificial nutrition and hydration procedures.
However, the father would be required to make the decision based on the decision-making principles in clause 22. The decision-making principles require the decision to be made in the way the decision-maker believes the adult would have done in the circumstances. Therefore, the father would have to consider whether his daughter would want to continue living on life support in a persistent vegetative state or to be taken off the life support machines and allowed to die naturally.
A third scenario is where the daughter may have made an advance consent decision in her advance personal plan, also under clause eight of the bill along the following terms, ‘If I suffer injury from trauma and am in a persistent vegetative state, I do not want to be given treatment to keep me alive, just keep me pain free and allow me to die naturally without artificial intervention’. That may constitute consent for a person in a persistent vegetative state to be given pain relief only and for any other treatment to be discontinued.
The question also seems to ask generally about how food and water fit within the definitions of treatment under the bill. Definitions relating to treatment in the Advance Personal Planning Bill are healthcare action and healthcare. In clause three, healthcare action is defined to mean commencing, continuing, withholding or withdrawing healthcare for an adult, and healthcare is defined to mean healthcare of any kind, including anything that is part of health service as defined in section five of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law. Section five of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law defines health service to include the following services whether provided as public or private services:
Artificial nutrition and hydration procedures would fall within the definition of health services – see section 5A and 5B of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law. According to the definition of healthcare action, these services may be withdrawn.
I raise that as it is an appropriate time to say these are difficult issues. I also have another long reading, but it is important not to shy away from some of these issues and to try to understand there are difficulties when people are very sick and dying. I quote from a book called Biomedical Ethics by Thomas A Mappes and David DeGrazia. Although it is a heavy book, it sheds light on the typical circumstances people have in relation to healthcare, especially when people are sick, dying, or in pain. People in healthcare have to make some very important decisions at times. I was going to read this article headed ‘Competent Adults and the Refusal of Life-Sustaining Treatment’. It says:
I took note of that, minister.
I know that is long but – although we are talking about a system where people have to deal with issues when their mental state is impaired – there are issues this bill does cover which are very important. I thought I would highlight that. I do, from a personal position, still struggle with the idea that one can withdraw food and water. I can understand we have the Natural Death Act and we can withdraw, for example, artificial support. Is the provision of food and water artificial? Some would say, ‘Well, if it is given artificially then it is perhaps an extraordinary means of keeping someone alive’. However, if someone has two broken arms, someone will have to feed them or food will have to be tubed in if they have other problems with being able to eat. This can happen with someone who has been in a severe car accident.
That is an area I touch on in this debate. I am not asking the government to give me its version of where the NT would stand with this, but it is certainly an area that needs to be looked at to see where, as a jurisdiction, we stand on that matter. Having looked at this book and looking at the thickness of it, it is an eye-opener for me as to what people in the medical profession have to deal with. This is especially the case in circumstances around end of life or when people are in, for example, a vegetative state or cannot help themselves.
Those articles highlight the complexities of the matter and especially relate to medical treatment and the removal of medical treatment. This bill is not about euthanasia, something I do not support, but that does not mean we can shy away from these complex issues which deal with life and death matters. There are times when we should debate and study these issues because they are complex. It also highlights what doctors, nurses, paramedics, palliative care workers and other care providers have to deal with in their everyday lives, and it may be in some cases a court will decide that.
I thank the minister and his department for the work they have done, especially in the public consultation. I attended the public consultation at Palmerston and I thank the member for Drysdale, as she helped organise that and I appreciate it; it was a good day and I thank the minister for coming. I will be a little cynical – it is not meant to be brutal – but there was consultation. We have a couple of bills coming before the House – I am not saying they had to go as long as this one, as this was a fairly long process, but it was important that people had a chance to put their points of view directly to the minister. I think people appreciated the minister being there because you are dealing with a piece of law that can be fairly complex.
I have issues with some of the terminology in here. When I had my briefing, they said there may be a brochure coming out that speaks in slightly non-legal terms. This is because ‘advance care’ and ‘advance plans’, ‘advance this’ and ‘advance that’ sometimes confuses people as to what we are talking about. I understand from my briefing the government will be bringing out some clarification so people understand what is happening.
I think there are many people in the Northern Territory who appreciate that this bill has come forward at last. Our past Speaker, Loraine Braham, has contacted me a number of times over the last couple of years asking when this was going to happen, and I take the point from the member for Araluen, as I believe she was also trying to hurry up the previous government. It is not an excuse for no consultation but I agree it sometimes gets put into the too hard basket and does not see the light of day. At least this has now seen the light of day.
I thank the minister for the consultation and the chance for the briefing. I especially thank the staff for giving me that legal advice on the question, which was an important question to ask, and I support this bill.
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, I too support the Attorney-General’s Advance Personal Planning Bill.
For too long, the Northern Territory has been a mixed jurisdiction when it comes to the law of decision-making capacity and future decision directives. Our jurisdiction is currently a confusing mix of adult guardianship, powers of attorney, trust estates and the common law. This Advance Personal Planning Bill is the realisation of a firm commitment made by the member for Port Darwin some time ago. It then became an election commitment for this government when in opposition.
It is easy to consume debate with headline matters like law and order, education and major projects. However, there are many Territorians anxious to have their wishes clearly communicated to those who will make decisions for them once they are unable to. Sadly for some, that is an imminent reality. Equally, this bill can and should be used by anyone, young or old, and I will detail the reasoning behind this shortly.
I thank the Attorney-General for giving priority to this unsexy but important matter with this bill and the consequential bill. This bill achieves a number of key reforms to the law in the Northern Territory. First, it enshrines the capacity for a person to make a consent decision for future healthcare action. This is very important. Blood transfusions, skin grafts, the administering of certain drugs or remedies, CPR and other medical care decisions can all be made in one clear, written plan which will be followed in the appropriate circumstances by medical personnel when a person loses their decision-making capacity.
I personally support legislative confirmation of my right should I care to exercise it; for example, not to be placed on life support in the event of an accident or injury that left me in a sustained vegetative state. I am also pleased to know that our hard-working, diligent, committed and often brave medical personnel are completely protected by the legislation. When they come across a person in need, they are expected to perform their primary role, which is preservation of life, and will be completely protected in the event that such action, when performed in good faith, is inconsistent with a consent decision.
Practically, paramedics attending a serious accident, or a doctor on an aeroplane, when coming upon a person in need of urgent medical care, cannot be expected to inquire as to the existence of a consent decision. Having made that point, however, many jurisdictions overseas and some in Australia are coming up with innovative means for people to make sure their medical wishes are known, even in emergency situations. For example, in the Colchester Emergency Service in the UK, they had so many call outs to elderly people who were unable to tell them what was wrong or what they wanted, they came up with a ‘file for life’ which was offered to all seniors.
The ‘file for life’ is attached by a magnet to a person’s refrigerator and contains vital information on their medical conditions, such as a heart problem or diabetes, as well as details about the medications a person is taking, an emergency contact and doctor. Additionally, and importantly for our legislative direction with these bills, if the person has a ‘do not resuscitate’ order, that will be noted in the file and at the person’s preferred hospital. Seniors are also issued a smaller copy of the information for their wallet. These are good ideas and we will watch how they go.
I know the national roll out of e-Health has the potential to create an easily accessible record of a person’s consent decision connected to every hospital and health centre in the country. Only time will tell whether or not e-Health’s potential is realised. For the purpose of this legislation at least, I hope it is.
It must be stressed this legislation does not provide or legalise euthanasia. That is made clear in the bill and was a topic at the public consultation I facilitated in Palmerston. The debate about the merits or otherwise of euthanasia is for another day.
In addition to consent decisions, the bills allow a person to make an advance care statement. These statements incorporate many of the aspects of the adult guardianship and powers of attorney frameworks currently in place. These statements can cover all manner of wishes, including financial, residential and medical. A statement should be made on an approved form, and I understand the recommendation will be that people place their wishes in a register to be established by the Department of the Attorney-General. Some matters, such as those relating to directions for dealing with property, must be registered to have effect. Other wishes are fine unregistered so long as someone knows they exist.
Consequential to a person making a statement of their wishes is the need for someone to be appointed to carry out those wishes. Under this proposed legislation, that can be one person or many, and I like this flexibility. Indeed, a person may appoint decision-makers according to their skill or relationship and there can be multiple people appointed to one category, either concurrently or in order of succession. For example, I am able to appoint my fianc to be my decision-maker regarding medical matters and also appoint my sister to the role in the event my fianc is unable or unwilling to perform the role. I could appoint an accountant or more distant relative with financial experience to manage my money, although there would not be much of it. If I had children, I could appoint my best friend as the decision-maker with regard to their education and future financial support should my partner also become incapacitated. A decision-maker must be 18 or older and must be capable of performing the role.
The point of all of this is the system is very flexible; I believe flexibility and ease of access is key to uptake. I would be unlikely to go through huge amounts of paperwork and timely processes, but the current system will avoid this. Therefore, I fully intend on making an advance personal plan – coming out of the Palmerston consultation was a need for simplicity in the form, simplicity in access, and understanding of it was a key point raised by my constituents. Where there is a dispute about a plan, either amongst decision-makers or regarding the plan, this will currently be determined by a court. I believe the proposed Administrative Appeals Tribunal may offer another means of resolution which is timelier and, hopefully, less costly. I encourage the Attorney-General to explore this when thinking about the tribunal structure.
Earlier this year, public information sessions were held around the Northern Territory, and I am pleased to report the Palmerston community consultation I helped facilitate was held at Gray Community Hall on Tuesday 9 July and attracted many interested people. I thank the Attorney-General and his team who attended the Palmerston community consultation and were extremely helpful to my constituents and continue to be extremely helpful in the whole process. I also note the member for Nelson attended my consultation and hope he enjoyed the lovely Gray Community Hall in my electorate, which is one of my favourite places to hang out during the week. It was very nice to see him in my electorate in a capacity other than football referee. He was wearing longer shorts, which is always good.
I have a very conscientious constituent, Anne Brown, who helps coordinate the Palmerston 50+ Club. At her request, I arranged a personal briefing for Anne with the Department of Attorney-General and Justice prior to the public consultation. Anne meets widely with members of our community and not only acts as a voluntary information source to others, she also advocates on behalf of those who do not necessarily wish to do it themselves. I am proud of Anne and what she does for our community, and am proud her long list of concerns was heard and noted by the department. I believe Anne’s feedback, as well as other feedback from the Palmerston consultation, has had a positive impact on operational aspects of this bill.
Ken Cohalan from Palmerston Probus was also very interested in our government’s plan to implement the Advance Personal Planning Bill. His comments and observations have made their way into the department’s considerations, and for that I am grateful. I spend a lot of time with seniors in Palmerston. They are a bright and vibrant part of our city’s social fabric. They are a proud group of people who have a keen interest in this government initiative as it helps them to feel prepared for whatever their life may throw at them.
Equally, young Territorians are not immune to life’s challenges. Whilst it is a horrible thought, anyone can lose their capacity at any time and we must all be conscious of that. In the words of the famous American athlete Jackie Joyner-Kersee:
This is what these bills will allow Territorians to do.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Attorney-General and I commend the bills to the House.
Mr STYLES (Senior Territorians): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Attorney-General for the opportunity to add to this debate. It is a great pleasure to support the Attorney-General on this bill.
I attended a number of the consultations in the community. The level of consulting – I agree with my colleagues who have spoken on this – was outstanding. There had been a lot of angst in the community about the previous Labor government’s legislation and people were onto me, as minister for Seniors, and the Attorney-General to do something. I congratulate the Attorney-General on the fantastic job he has done. Many people are extremely happy with what has been progressed.
It took a little time, but when I explained what was happening, people were grateful we took the time to consult and got it right. In the future, if there is any tweaking to be done, it will be. Congratulations, once again, for doing a great job and not crumbling under the pressure to get this out in record time.
We treasure our senior Territorians, not only for the contribution they have made to the Territory in the past, but for the contribution they keep making. Whether it is imparting wisdom to our younger generation, volunteering to put on great events like Seniors Month, or just being part of our vibrant community, their place is an important one. To quote my mother when I was growing up, she always said to me, ‘Look after the old folks because they once looked after you’.
However, this does not just affect older people in our community; it affects young people as well. Sadly, some young people who do not get the opportunity to lead what we call a full life, who may have debilitating diseases or health issues, or an acquired injury that will cause them to deteriorate in a short or long period of time, need to have the peace of mind this bill brings.
If we do not do this, it would put the Territory out of step with the rest of the states and territories. It would also deprive people of the freedom to make important decisions while they are able. Why is this important? Why do we need an Advance Personal Planning Bill? Are there no other mechanisms to allow for this kind of decision-making? The answer is not really.
This government identified the gap in the legislation the previous government brought in, and we seek to put these questions beyond all doubt. We believe it is the right of every Territorian to make an advance personal plan. It is not something people necessarily think about often but, as we see tragedies play out in our society all the time, we also get a sense that it is prudent to give Territorians a choice. Of course, everyone hopes such an advance personal plan will never be needed. Like insurance, it is something you never want to call on, but you are reassured if you have to. Advance personal plans provide reassurance for loved ones and family.
Inside the Speaker’s office is the Remonstrance. This is a document that every member then serving in this House signed after the Commonwealth parliament overturned a Territory law relating to euthanasia. It called upon the Commonwealth parliament to respect the rights of the Northern Territory parliament to make laws for the people of the Northern Territory. Those laws were an example of the Northern Territory leading the way in giving options to those in our society who have to face a cold, stark choice – a choice none of us in this Chamber or society want to have to face.
However, there are some in our community who will demonstrate enormous courage and face up to that choice day in and day out. It behoves us in this place to ensure people can plan ahead, that people can give thought to their future and make decisions about the future now.
I will go into the detail of the bill for a moment. The advance personal plan is the vehicle under the bill which will allow a person with the relevant planning capacity to provide for their future. An advance personal plan will be able to contain one or all of the three following elements: advance consent decisions, commonly referred to as advance health directives; advance care statements; or the appointment of one or more persons to make decisions for the person. Advance consent decisions are legally binding documents for the making of decisions relating to future healthcare. For example, a person may make an advance consent decision, refusing to have certain treatments such as blood transfusions, chemotherapy, radiation or antibiotics.
An advance consent decision has effect if a person makes the decision at the time it is proposed to take the healthcare action; a person may make multiple advance consent decisions. Advance consent decisions are also able to be made by an appointed decision-maker or guardian. However, there are limits to a decision a guardian can make for a patient. These advance care decision provisions will give Territorians the ability to plan ahead and take control of the future in any medical issues they may face, another element of an advance personal plan for advance care statements. These are statements setting out the adult’s views, wishes and beliefs in relation to treatment. A good example is someone making a decision about any possible treatment based on religious beliefs. These statements will be a good indicator of a person’s wishes, both in the absence of an appointed decision-maker and where a person has been appointed to make decisions for someone. The final plank of the new law relates to the appointment of decision-makers.
Under the Advance Personal Planning Bill, a person can be appointed as a decision-maker in order to make decisions on a wide variety of matters, including financial, health, property and family matters. A person is able to appoint a number of people to be decision-makers. These people can have expertise in various areas. For example, an accountant can be appointed to manage financial affairs. This part of the bill provides a great degree of certainty to Territorians that their wishes and directions will be followed if they lose the capacity to make decisions themselves. That is the main purpose of this bill: to provide choice for Territorians and enable them to plan for their medical and related care if they choose to.
The Country Liberals government is fundamentally about ‘getting out of the way’ and allowing Territorians to make their own decisions and choices in life. As I moved around the Territory talking to seniors and other interested people, one of the main concerns of seniors was this bill and the issues contained in it. They said one of their great concerns is about – and especially as people are advancing in years – making plans for their treatment and what will happen to them, but they want to be very much a part of that decision-making process. I applaud the Attorney-General for doing this for all the people who are seniors, who are suffering Alzheimer’s or for those caring for young people who, for some reason, cannot make these decisions for themselves. I thank the Attorney-General for bringing this to parliament in such a fine state. I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, sometimes you have a nice day at the office and this is a nice day at the office. It is a nice day for a number of reasons but I confess this idea is not mine, as much as I would like to hang it as the John Elferink legacy for my time in parliament. The idea was brought to me by a number of members of the Country Liberals. I particularly acknowledge Ross Connolly, in his approach, who is now the party president and thank him for his endeavours. He pushed it through as a motion on the floor of our Central Council and I brought it into the House when we were still in opposition. People who are not associated with the Country Liberals were also interested in this space and I would like to thank Hon Austin Asche, but, in particular, Hugh and Sue Bradley, as well as Alzheimer’s in the Northern Territory and a number of other organisations that helped give this thing legs and momentum, even in the time of opposition.
The bill I introduced in opposition is fundamentally different to this bill and I am grateful, when that was defeated in opposition, I was able to bring it back when in government and go through a consultation process that was a lot broader. I have to thank the literally hundreds of Territorians who turned up to these consultations for their input. I was genuinely surprised and I heard the Minister for Infrastructure make the comment about the amount of interest this bill has generated.
There is enormous interest in this legislation in the community, and when I spoke to COTA – I also thank Robyn Lesley from COTA for her input into this – I was surprised not only by the number of people who were interested but the depth of interest. It became clear to me during the consultation process that we had to be very careful about how we preceded with this legislation. This was because there is a lot of buy-in into this space and, as a good Liberal, I genuinely believe this is about giving people control and power over their own lives. That is what this bill captures, along with its subsequent and consequential amendments. I apologise to those people who believed at the outset we were going to do this by April - I almost got it in in April. I think the original bill came in in June but it is more important to get it right and take a little time than it is to push against your own artificial timetables.
In any instance, I note the comments from all members; I am grateful. I thank the member for Nelson for putting the amount of effort and thinking into this that he has. He is clearly a man who is concerned about one component of this but understands the overall thrust of the bill. He has taken the time and care to express his opinions in a clear way in this House, and I am grateful to him for that. I am also, of course, grateful to the opposition for their support, but I think they too would have realised that in the community there is a high level of expectation this would happen.
I have circulated a couple of minor amendments. I have spoken to the opposition and we do have to go into the committee stages. There is not much more I can say about this other than to thank everybody for their care and interest, including the many Territorians who turned up for the public consultations; I hope this bill serves you well. I pick up on what the Minister for Health had to say about the future of adult guardianship and I look forward to endeavours in that space as well. Without further ado, I will sit down and let the processes of this House move on.
Motion agreed to; bills read a second time.
In committee:
Mr CHAIR: The committee has before it the Advance Personal Planning Bill (Serial 41) together with the Schedule of Amendments No. 10 circulated by the Attorney-General, and the Advance Personal Planning (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013 (Serial 54). The bills will be considered sequentially.
Clauses 1 to 22:
Mr WOOD: During the briefing, Attorney-General, I asked – I had some advice from a lawyer in relation to this – whether the objectives of this act could be included in Part 1. These presently appear between the number of the act and Part 1 of the act. The advice I received is if you put that objective within the act – I have seen a number of bills where that does take place – the technical reason for that is the purposive approach, the statutory interpretation, is assisted by having that within the content of the bill rather than at the top of the bill. I did raise it at the briefing.
Mr ELFERINK: You are surprising me at the last moment, Mr Wood.
Mr WOOD: Sorry.
Mr ELFERINK: I will read this out. It is in my briefing notes, and the answer is basically this: an objects clause is where the bill contains a statement of the purpose of the act. In Australia, it is now generally accepted that, in most cases, the appropriate place to set out the background and political aims of an act is in the second reading speech and explanatory statement. The practice in all Australian jurisdictions, except Victoria, is to have a long title which sets out the scope of the act. Victoria and New Zealand have dispensed with long titles and use purposes and objectives clauses instead.
The current practice in the Northern Territory is that objects clauses are not included as a matter of course but can be included if doing so serves some useful purpose. For example, in very complex legislation, an overview or explanation of the act might be helpful to assist the reader in understanding the act. For example, the Commonwealth Income Tax Assessment Act has such provisions, not just for the act as a whole, but for each division, which is undoubtedly useful.
The reason for not providing an objects clause in the Advance Personal Planning Bill is it would not have served any useful purpose. The purpose of the bill is clear from the whole act and having regard to specific sections.
I hope that helps you, member for Nelson. If not, if you could convince me to bring back an amendment at a later time, I would hear you on such a matter.
Clauses 1 to 22, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 23.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chair, I move that in clause 23(1)(b), we omit the reference to section 22(3) and insert the words ‘section 22(4)’.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Mr CHAIR: I turn to the Advance Personal Planning (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013. The committee has before it the Advance Personal Planning (Consequential Amendments) Bill, Serial 54, together with the Schedule of Amendments No 12 circulated by the Attorney-General.
Clauses 1 to 140, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Schedule of Amendments No 12:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chair, this is a straightforward typo that has been fixed. I move that from the schedule we omit the words ‘power of attorney’ and insert the words ‘powers of attorney’, therefore turning a singular into a plural.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bills reported with amendments; report adopted.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bills read a third time.
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, whilst there is no question before the House - my apologies to the leader of opposition business - the Chief Minister has asked me, on his behalf, to read a short tabling statement in relation to revocation of guidelines of the Public Information Act.
Madam Speaker, I lay on the table the revocation of guidelines for the Public Information Act.
Honourable members would be aware the Public Information Act commenced on 1 August 2010. The act provides for the review of public information, being certain types of information given by a public authority to the public by using money or other property of the Territory. The act also permits the making of guidelines for matters to be taken into account by the Auditor-General when reviewing particular public information and making determinations under the act.
A notice for the making of public information guidelines was signed on 14 July 2010 by the then Chief Minister and published in Gazette No G31 of 4 August 2010. As far as we can now tell, those guidelines were made without the benefit of legal advice.
We have now received advice from the Solicitor-General that many of the guidelines are invalid as they impose constraints beyond what is permissible under the act.
The purpose of the Solicitor-General’s advice is the guidelines are a statutory instrument which is subordinate to the act. Subordinate instruments are limited in their scope by the provisions of the principle legislation and cannot validly purport to create additional contraventions. Furthermore, the Solicitor-General has advised the guidelines cannot lawfully compel any public authority to seek compliance advice and the public authorities are not bound by such advice.
Parliamentary Counsel agrees with the Solicitor-General’s opinion. Accordingly, the Chief Minister has decided to revoke the guidelines. The Chief Minister signed an instrument of revocation on the guidelines on 14 November 2013 which was notified in the government Gazette on 26 November 2013.
I now, on behalf of the Chief Minister, table a copy of the instrument in this House.
The Solicitor-General has also advised that the Public Information Act does not require guidelines to be in place for the operation of the act, and we do not intend to make new ones. They are unnecessary and simply add a layer of bureaucracy for no good purpose. In our view, the Auditor-General is perfectly capable of doing his job under the legislation without directions from a minister.
The Chief Minister and I can assure you, and our colleagues, this action will not have an impact on public authorities and the compliance within the act relating to content and information provided to the public. There will be no change to the Public Information Act.
The committee nominated by the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of the Chief Minister will continue to provide guidance to agencies regarding compliance with the Public Information Act.
I seek leave, on behalf of the Chief Minister, to continue his remarks at a later date.
Leave granted.
Mr CHANDLER (Education): Madam Speaker, quality education is the key to positive participation of Territorians in our community and our economy. It is the vehicle which drives social and economic advancement. An extract from a recent paper published by the Melbourne Institute sums this up very well:
This government is absolutely focused on getting it right. We are intent on discovering what works and targeting our spending towards improved outcomes. The Northern Territory sits in stark contrast to every other jurisdiction in Australia when it comes to education outcomes. We are at the bottom of the pile and have been for decades.
We will not experience the level of improvement which is demanded of us if we continue to deliver education in the same way we always have. We must challenge the conventions that have led us to this place and plot a new way forward based on proven practices that deliver results.
When we took government a little over a year ago, we were daunted by the knowledge there had been no significant improvement in students’ national testing results across reading and numeracy for five years. This is despite the Northern Territory recording, by far, the worst results of any Australian state or territory year after year; no improvement had been made.
Even more surprising was that the investment of both Territory and federal governments in education had increased significantly over the same period. Over the previous five years to 2012, education staff had increased by 790, or 20%, from 3857 full time equivalent staff in 2007-08 to 4647 staff in 2011-12.
At the same time, the government Education budget had increased by over 46%, from $467m per annum to $683m per annum. Interestingly, these increases in staff and funding were not matched by a similar increase in enrolments; the number of students in our schools increased by only 173 students over the same period.
This dramatic and unprecedented increase in spending had failed to achieve any real improvements. These efforts, well intentioned and popular as they may have been, have not yielded positive results for our children. This phenomenon is not unique to the Northern Territory, as outlined by Justine Ferrari in the Weekend Australian last month. In this article, she wrote:
She went on to write:
He then went on to say:
I believe I have made a similar statement here.
Geoff Masters’ comments were also supported by Ben Jensen, Director of the School Education Program at the Grattan Institute:
I will not be grouped under the heading of people unwilling to acknowledge the evidence and make the necessary changes. It is time to take stock of the direction of school education in the Northern Territory and challenge the simple-minded and false conventions that equate more money with better outcomes.
This government will shift education policy in the Northern Territory, and this shift will require change. To this end, we have, so far, commissioned a review into Indigenous education to determine a more responsible and effective approach to addressing Indigenous student outcomes and increased support for the early years of learning and development that are so important as the foundation of each person’s future life chances. We have commenced a review into teacher/student ratios in the middle and senior years; established the community driven school initiative; established the literacy and numeracy expert panel to inform practices to improve literacy and numeracy outcomes; and established the behaviour management task force to assist schools to manage the escalation of poor behaviour that has disrupted teaching and learning for too many students and teachers for far too long.
The government has also commenced rebuilding the relationship with the non-government schooling sector, recognising the importance of this sector in providing choice to parents, and has commenced establishing a state of the art distance education facility that can ensure that children across the Northern Territory, wherever they live, can access high-quality education services delivered through the latest technologies.
About the Indigenous education review: education outcomes across the Northern Territory are worst amongst our Indigenous students, and that is shameful. This has been our greatest failure to date and it is here we require the greatest improvement. It is for this reason we have commissioned a comprehensive review of Indigenous education in the Northern Territory, because if we ever needed a greater understanding of what is working and what is not, it is with regard to delivering education for Indigenous students. It is interesting to note the last significant review conducted into Indigenous education in the Northern Territory produced a report called Learning Lessons. The review was commissioned in late 1998 with the report published late in 1999. It was comprehensive and constructive in charting a way forward with a clear focus on improved outcomes. The great shame was there was a change of government not long after that report, and it sat on the shelf collecting dust for the next decade. This was a decade of ad hoc spending along with general lack of critical analysis about the successes and failures of Indigenous education in the Northern Territory.
It is time for us to take stock of what has worked and what has not, to ask the important questions about where we should now best focus our resources. In consultation with educators, partnership bodies and Indigenous communities, the review is assessing what is working and what is not in improving student attendance, engagement and, of course, the important outcomes; determining the best use of the significant resources that have been and continue to be invested; providing an understanding of how parents and families are engaged in the process and informed on education standards, attendance and achievements; looking at current and future demographic trends in the Indigenous student population; evaluating how the department can better support Indigenous education; and looking at the partnership arrangements, the opportunities that exist and how to empower local communities.
This is an important review, and it is being conducted in consultation with educators, stakeholders and the community. Bruce Wilson, a respected independent consultant, has been appointed to lead the review. Bruce has more than 30 years of experience in education, specialising in curriculum policy and development, and has specific knowledge of the Northern Territory, having undertaken previous extensive work with the department on curriculum and schooling models. This report, its recommendations and findings will be submitted to government for consideration in the first quarter of 2014. The review will drive a more strategic approach to Indigenous education service delivery, including negotiating funding with the Australian government that is aligned to a strategic and evidence-based plan to improve outcomes for Indigenous children and students. I am looking forward to receiving that report and note, with interest, some of the issues Bruce has already flagged, including how best to deliver secondary education in a remote context and where improved attendance will have its strongest effects.
Moving to the new investment in early childhood education; the Northern Territory has been investing in early childhood education, and recent results indicate this investment may be starting to pay early modest dividends. The Australian Early Development Index measures how well prepared children are for school by the age of five. There have been significant improvements in the Territory’s Australian Early Development Index results, particularly for Indigenous children. However, according to this measure, our levels of developmental vulnerability remain the highest across the nation. Our NAPLAN results also show improvements for children in the early years; however, while these are encouraging early signs, there is more work to do, and investment in this area will enhance the early learning services and support available to children and parents across the Territory.
Early childhood classes will be boosted by 63 teachers in 2014, creating additional teaching positions in Transition, Year 1 and Year 2. These teachers will support students in their early stages of education and ensure they are provided with a strong foundation for their future learning and engagement with schooling.
This government has initiated a $150 000 annual fund that is distributed to long-day care centres for the purchase of toys and equipment to assist them deliver quality and educationally based early learning programs for children in their care. All 72 long-day care services in the Territory, which support children in some 3200 full-time places, have benefited from this program this year.
Moving to the literacy and numeracy expert panel; for too many years, the literacy and numeracy outcomes for too many young Territorians have been too low. The literacy and numeracy expert panel, led by numeracy expert, Professor Peter Sullivan, is reviewing current literacy and numeracy policy and practice. In December this year, the panel will make recommendations to the government on how and where we need to focus our efforts to improve not only our NAPLAN results, but also literacy and numeracy skills across all stages of schooling and in all subject areas.
A behaviour management task force has been established to provide advice about managing inappropriate and antisocial behaviour in schools including bullying, assault, verbal abuse, indecent behaviour, dangerous acts, weapons, property offences and substance abuse. The task force includes school principals as well as representatives from Northern Territory Council of Government School Organisations, Northern Territory Health, the Association of Northern Territory School Education Leaders, the Australian Education Union Northern Territory and clinical psychologist, Mr Andrew Fuller. Advice from this group will assist the Department of Education to respond to critical behaviour incidents, suspension actions, extreme behaviour support and data collection and reporting, and will inform changes to the Education Act to implement new behaviour management strategies. It is imperative students and teachers feel safe and supported at school.
I move to the Northern Territory Open Education Centre, something I am extremely excited about. The exciting Northern Territory Open Education Centre facilities are not designed to provide the level of technical capability needed to continue to expand this very important service into the future. Over 550 students access this service annually, 40% to 50% of whom are Indigenous. It is important we provide a service which targets the needs of all students. The Northern Territory government has secured private investment to contribute to the development of a state-of-the-art new open education centre to be located at Darwin High School. The total cost of the new initiative will be in excess of $14m and will benefit from a generous contribution of $3m from INPEX. It will be equipped with cutting-edge distance learning technologies and virtual classrooms. This service will provide high quality and comprehensive learning programs to a diverse range of students, no matter where they live. In time, the plans for the new distance education service will include outreach into Asia.
Moving to Vocational Education and Training; we will develop employment pathways for young people in key industry areas that contribute to economic development in our region. I have often remarked that the ultimate employment outcome is a job, and one fantastic pathway to a job is through vocational education and training. There are substantial opportunities in areas such as rural industry, as well as the mining and energy industries, and we need to ensure our students are work ready and able to take on these roles now and into the future.
At the moment, many pastoral properties employ gap year workers. Agricultural and horticultural industries use backpackers for seasonal work. In the mining industry, we recruit from interstate and overseas; at the same time, we have students in regional and remote areas without a pathway to employment and much of this work is located in the areas in which our students live.
We need to provide students with the skills and training to take advantage of the employment opportunities available in their region. We will work in partnership with industry and communities to support this through such initiatives as the NT schools Indigenous rural workers project and the mining pathways project. Students will be introduced to a wide range of skills that match employment opportunities relevant to industries in the areas in which they live.
Contextualised literacy and numeracy programs and vocational education and training studies will provide students an insight into the area of work that attracts them and assists them to gain an understanding of what employers expect. In situ work placements will provide real training with real employers to ensure students gain the greatest opportunity to transition into real jobs and real futures in the Northern Territory. The work will continue to be expanded to cover areas such as tourism and community services over the coming years.
Our new federal government supports education in the Northern Territory. I am looking forward to a constructive working relationship with the new Abbott-led federal government. Having recently met with Christopher Pyne, in his new role as Education minister, I was encouraged by his willingness to support greater autonomy for the Northern Territory in delivering education. He gave an explicit acknowledgement that it is the Northern Territory that is best placed to determine and deliver schooling.
It was also heartening to hear Minister Pyne speak about his enthusiasm for independent public schools and for greater autonomy in allowing schools to allocate their own budgets. This matches our own efforts in working with communities to develop new approaches to provisioning schools under the new school autonomy arrangements. One-hundred-and-fifty-four government schools will be empowered to make local level decisions about staffing and financial resources through one line budget allocations from 2015.
Schools will be provided with greater opportunities to customise their services to meet the different needs of families and communities across the Territory. This increased autonomy will be balanced by consistent and system-wide effort and accountability to ensure we continue to build on the quality of our schools through a strong and transparent improvement agenda.
I quote from the recent working paper of the Melbourne Institute, titled Educational Achievement and the Allocation of School Resources:
In order to successfully transition to these new arrangements, several communities and non-government service providers have already expressed interest in exploring these new governance arrangements. We are committed to increasing the involvement of non-government, private and community based organisations in delivering education infrastructure and schooling services to ensure we have a high performing, diverse and competitive education system that provides choice for parents and their communities.
This is consistent with the new federal government’s policy position on school autonomy and independent public schools. Early initiatives of this government have addressed our immediate concern with increasing the focus on early years, addressing Indigenous student outcomes, moving to contemporise distance education and addressing safety and wellbeing issues in our schools. We are strengthening our regional presence to drive better outcomes and create stronger ties between schools to ensure all children have access to quality education and training, and clear pathways to employment, further education or training.
Over 60% of our schools are located outside the greater Darwin area, and while a shift has been made in recent years towards a regional model of service delivery, we are only part way there. Many of our school support services are still provided from a central base. We intend to shift this practice because decisions are best made and resources have the most impact when they are determined closest to the point of service delivery in schools. Flexible and innovative options for service delivery such as online learning platforms and teacher support resources for remote students will be key to delivering this reform.
We are creating a hub-and-spoke model of service delivery where schools in major regional towns are supporting those in more remote areas. Opportunities for enhanced interschool sport events, residential programs and programs to support transient students will strengthen the relationships between schools and assist students to access learning that meets their individual needs.
We have commenced rewriting the Education Act to ensure it meets the future needs of education services in the Northern Territory. We will have contemporary legislation that enables us to deliver reforms to behaviour management, remote service delivery and school governance, as well as innovation in the way education services are provided into the future. A consultation draft will be out for discussion in the first half of next year.
Over the next 12 months, we will focus on rebalancing the system so we have equal emphasis on striving to improve outcomes for students who are falling behind, as well as those with high potential. We will aim to increase the number of students, particularly Indigenous students, achieving an NTCET; to increase our average university entrance ATAR scores; and develop a long-term strategy for contemporary asset management, infrastructure forecasting and planning education services that encompass new and innovative ways of building and using infrastructure for educational purposes. The development of a greater Darwin infrastructure plan will assist to ensure growing and changing population patterns are accounted for in the future service provisions in the area.
We will reset our relationship with the Australian government to an agreed strategic plan, particularly on Indigenous education that supports long-term funding commitments to programs that work and ensures the Northern Territory not only influences but drives the priorities to which Australian government funding is directed. This is particularly important when it comes to areas such as improving service delivery in the bush and the way we address Indigenous education reform, identifying and implementing measures to address poor attendance and learning outcomes and the location and management of boarding schools for remote students.
It is in areas such as these that the Northern Territory’s experience of previous reforms and knowledge of context needs to be front and centre of the decision-making process to ensure we not only learn from previous experience, but make the most of the opportunities available to deliver real results from government investment.
In conclusion, this government is focused on getting it right. We are intent on discovering what works and targeting our spending towards improved outcomes. The Northern Territory sits in stark contrast to other jurisdictions in Australia and when it comes to education outcomes, we are at the bottom of the pile and have been for decades. We will not experience the level of improvement demanded of us if we continue to deliver education in the same way we always have. We must challenge the conventions that have led us to this place and plot a new way forward based on proven practices that deliver results.
This is a journey we should all embrace and, politics aside, we all want to see improved educational outcomes that lead to real opportunities for students. Join us, and together we can make a difference.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, this statement is scripted, dishonest and dangerous. I challenge the minister to go into any Territory school and tell the students they are ‘at the bottom of the pile’. It is offensive and misleading. You are wrong, as a government, to say education in the Territory is going backwards.
The Northern Territory had the largest gains in Australia between 2008 and 2010, made by Indigenous students in Years 3, 5, 7 and 9 in reading, spelling, grammar and punctuation. These results are a great tribute to the hard work of teachers in schools across the Territory and the students themselves, but these improvements are being put at risk by the actions of this CLP government.
Minister, is this how you improve outcomes? Do you improve educational outcomes by cutting teacher numbers and putting down teachers and students? Do you improve educational outcomes by slashing jobs? We have the most complex and challenging educational environment in the country. The proportion of Indigenous students is nearly 40%, compared with around 3% nationally.
The scale and complexity of the Territory’s remoteness is of a different level to the rest of Australia. Students from an ESL background make up a far greater proportion than any other jurisdiction and have significant learning needs. To cut educational services and teacher numbers before any of these reviews have been completed is ridiculous. It is just wrong.
You are undertaking three reviews: Indigenous education, middle years education and senior years education. These are all areas you are cutting. I doubt any review will indicate an improvement of outcomes will be as a result of fewer teachers and less educational spending, so why cut now before the reviews have been completed? It does not make sense to slash and burn, cut jobs and then review.
You claim to be focusing on early childhood education, but there is no new investment in this area from your government. You are cutting teachers across the Territory, including primary schools, and I want to highlight one school to show this. I know a school that was set to receive, under the old formula, 1.6 extra teachers. Under your new formula, they have lost 0.3; that school has effectively lost two teachers. This is happening in our primary schools across the Territory, so for you to stand in this Chamber and say our primary schools are not losing teachers is wrong.
The Indigenous education review is meaningless without genuine consultation in the bush communities. We must question cutting positions before the review is completed. Your CLP government needs to consult widely on Indigenous education, receive the best advice from remote communities across the Territory and speak to your own colleagues.
My colleague, the member for Johnston, has called on the CLP government to ensure the review team includes senior Indigenous educators who could bring their experience and expertise to the review. Gurruwun Yunupingu could bring a wealth of knowledge to the review. People such as her should be involved with the review; they are long-term Territorians who are passionate and know what needs to be done and what is being done. We are still waiting to hear from you about what you will do to ensure they are involved in the review.
A recent COAG report shows we still have a long way to go in closing the Indigenous education gap, but we are making inroads. It does not make sense to be cutting teachers, cutting support staff when there is more work to be done in the bush.
There is no evidence to support the government’s view that cutting teachers will improve educational outcomes. The government says teachers should make submissions to the review, but how can you expect anyone to take these reviews seriously when the cuts are happening now, before the conclusions of the review and the absence of any evidence?
It is not just teaching positions your CLP government is slashing. On 28 October, you announced:
Seventy-one support staff positions gone, 85 regionalised and we are yet to see where they have ended up. School support positions provide vital programs such as ICT, behavioural management and counselling. These are the people who support our teachers in the classroom. They make sure that students learn. They make sure students with behaviour management issues do not disrupt the rest of the class. They make sure computers are working, science rooms are set up, school functions run smoothly, first aid can be provided – if support staff go, so do all these extra services. This will mean more pressure on teachers, and that is putting our Territory students at risk.
Support roles ensure teachers can focus on our children in the classroom, but with your government taking away support positions, our teachers are under more pressure. Classrooms will become less about learning, and there will be less individual attention as a result. Your government’s decisions mean our classrooms are bigger with less support and less focus on learning. Along with cutting teachers and cutting support positions, this government is cutting grant programs.
Your government has cut $842 000 from VET in Schools; $1.026m from CDU operating and infrastructure grants; $225 000 from a teacher training program; $280 000 from special needs students; $8000 from the Central Australian wraparound support program; $42 000 from CDU Centres of Excellence; $106 000 from extreme behaviour grants; $100 000 from ICT learning; $20 000 for music in the bush; $159 000 from the ‘Polly’ Farmer centre at Centralian Senior College in Alice Springs; $30 000 from VAMPtv, which engages Indigenous kids through music; and $50 000 from the Smart Schools Awards. These are huge cuts to our education system. These programs are important. Every program I mentioned has been cut by your government or has had funding cut from it. Cutting these programs, combined with cutting teachers and support staff, does not make sense. The only reason you have given is we need to save money. As the Minister for Education, you need to rise above that.
I was recently told a story about a newly graduated teacher. This person was born and bred in the Territory. They had a gap year, undertook some tutoring and decided they would like to do teaching at university; your government gave them a scholarship. Over $50 000 was invested in this young Territorian to become a qualified maths and science teacher for our senior schools. This person cannot get a job under your government. We are short of Territory teachers and your government is not providing opportunities; instead you are cutting teachers. That is just one of many stories I have heard over the last few weeks.
I am most concerned about your community-driven schools. You said several communities and non-government service providers have already expressed interest in exploring these new government arrangements. Yesterday, there were reports that Namatjira college has done a deal with the Department of Education to take over the Docker River primary school. You tell us in this parliament today the government is increasing the number of non-government and private community-based organisations, but it appears that deal has already been done. This has been done without consultation. Where is it all going? Why have we, as parents, not had consultation about future plans? Who is talking to parents? Who is talking to the community about what it all means? Why can we not have transparency around these arrangements? It is policy on the run. I personally believe it is the privatisation of our public schools by another name, and that is everything that Labor stands against. We will be continuing to focus on that because we do not agree with it.
People look to government to focus on education, improve educational outcomes, providing that basic right for Territorians. We have heard speeches in this parliament today, stating that if we do not get education right for our kids, they will have no hope.
This statement is most telling in its omissions. There is no mention of middle school support or ways to assist reengaging students in these years, when research shows us they become disengaged. If you are serious about improving behaviour in schools, you must rule out cuts to behaviour management. We are still hearing you will make cuts to funding for The Malak Re-engagement Centre, which deals with our most at risk youths. We do not want to see a single position lost from that centre. We are hearing you have shelved plans to scrap the centre as a whole, but you are still planning to cut staff there.
The centre was set up in response to an extreme student behaviour working group report, following growing concerns from teachers about violence in our schools. They work with 70 of the most challenging students, alongside Danila Dilba, Mission Australia, carers and parents. Some of these students are involved with the judicial system. The centre works to give these students a chance at learning, a life away from crime.
The statement does not mention senior schooling or offer pathways and opportunities for our older students. This has been raised with me. Fewer pathways in our senior schools is the result of cutting subject choices. You talk about pathways in VET, but you are removing options. Our senior students have fewer pathways, thanks to your government. They do not want a diminished subject choice. They do not want a lack of pathways. Some students are unable to complete the pathway they are already taking, which is a mixture of school and VET.
You are directly interfering with students’ education. You are responsible for this. I ask again: why have you started cuts before you have had the review and before any recommendations have been received? Your government is in complete disarray over education. We have had three ministers in the first year, the member for Araluen, the member for Port Darwin and now you, the member for Brennan. You have all promised the world but have been short-sighted, and you are responsible for the decay of our school system over the last year.
I do not get it. I can understand why you would ignore me, but I do not understand why you ignore the hundreds of teachers here today. Why are you ignoring parents? I know of numerous letters sent to you that your office has ignored.
Only yesterday, the member for Goyder tabled a petition with 113 signatures from people in Yuendumu who are opposed to the cuts. The member for Namatjira tabled a petition with 62 signatures from Areyonga. The member for Arnhem tabled a petition with 99 signatories from Ramingining. The petition says the Ramingining community is united in its belief the staff cuts to Ramingining School will have a detrimental impact on the education of its students. The citizens of Ramingining believe reducing the number of teacher positions in their remote school will increase the gap between academic standards of Indigenous and mainstream students. The petitioners want the Northern Territory government to withdraw the cuts to teaching positions from your staffing formula changes for their school. I do not know how it can be any clearer. It is a petition; it is not a huge amount of signatures but is a huge amount from our community.
You talk about getting it right but you have so far alienated all major stakeholders. You have alienated teachers, parents, the AEU, COGSO, ANTSEL and fair-minded citizens. It was interesting to hear you raise the Northern Territory Open Education Centre in your speech. What you have done there is just wrong, and it is appalling. You have moved a public school serving 650 students with no concrete plans and no set budget in place. When responding to my comments, will you commit to move them permanently to their new facility by the start of the 2016 school year? The school council has asked me to put that question to you. They will not let up on this; they have accepted they had to move from Chrisp Street to Nightcliff Middle School, but they will not let up on this.
You say there will be a new facility in time; they want more than that – if you were genuine about this, you would have been making plans all year. Instead, our education system is in chaos. The music school being relocated to Sanderson Middle School – we spoke about it this morning – is costing hundreds of thousands of dollars and is an unnecessary disruption. For staff in these schools, apart from everything else, you have added extra worry and stress. It might seem trivial, but staff at the NTOEC are wondering if their desks will fit. Where will they be learning? You really need to understand.
Talking about the federal funding arrangements, you said a federal funding deal for the Territory should be announced ‘very, very soon’, after your meeting with Christopher Pyne. You also said you were confident the new government would match the Gonski funding. We saw all that thrown out the window yesterday. That is not right. The Territory government has let down Territory schools in negotiating these funding arrangements and we are now being left out in the cold. It means no funding from the federal government for Territory schools and, on top of your government’s funding cuts to teachers and support positions, we are even worse off. When will you stand up for Territory school kids and fight to deliver more funding, which means more individual attention in our communities?
You spoke with the Treasurer about time yesterday. Did you impress upon him that teachers, parents and students want the government to stop the cuts now? What was the result of the conversation with the Treasurer? You must stop and listen.
Minister, talking about education as if it is not the Department of Education’s responsibility – ‘It is a whole-of-government approach; it is up to the department to …’ – you do not understand, within our schools, it is up to the department to ensure our kids are supported and resourced so they can learn. You are trying to shift the blame onto other departments. You are the Minister for Education, you are responsible.
You say parents need support and families need extra support. While it is technically not the responsibility of schools to provide the services they do, teachers and schools are hubs in remote communities. Teachers and teaching assistants want their kids to learn. If that means we need to provide wraparound support to our teachers, to our communities – we work together to educate our kids. We have one chance to get it right with these kids, otherwise it is another generation gone without support. Minister, that is what you do not get. You are trying to shift the blame. ‘It is a whole-of-government approach. Parents need to do more.’ The reality is we have one chance to get it right with these kids. I urge you to rethink that.
Something that is extremely disappointing is the cutting of the GEMS program. The Girls Engagement Monitoring and Support program was originally set up at Sanderson Middle School in 2009, following concerns from parents and teachers about attendance and support for young girls at school. Indigenous parents and the Sanderson School Council agreed that something had to be done. This is a cohort that research shows – parents talk constantly about it being hard for middle school girls. It was based on the successful Clontarf program for boys, which is fantastic. Girls wanted their own program, and that should be respected. You have not cut the Clontarf program, but you have cut the GEMS program, and that is wrong.
That is a well-resourced program. I visited the GEMS program at Sanderson and I saw it in action at Nightcliff. It is a program that provides support to teachers and those girls, and their attendance results and their performance have improved. I do not understand your logic for cutting that program. You are sitting there, shaking your head at me. The facts are their attendance and success at school has improved.
There are so many good stories. I heard a story about one of the girls who graduated Year 12 last year and has gone on to study at CDU. This is a girl who may have been getting into trouble, becoming at risk, who could have gone the other way. She has come through with the support of the GEMS program. There are so many good stories about girls in the program.
The loss is devastating to Dripstone Middle School, Nightcliff Middle School and Casuarina Senior College. It was a program that made a real difference, but your government’s cuts have put that at risk and that is not fair.
Why would you cut funding to a successful program that engages students and boosts attendance? It highlights that your government has the wrong priorities. It is not listening to parents or the community. Those parents want that program to continue.
This morning, the public gallery was filled with teachers because they are concerned about them, their colleges and their support staff losing their jobs. It is clear that teachers, support staff, administration staff and parents have the support of the community in their campaign to reverse these dysfunctional cuts. This is something that concerns even people who do not have children involved in school, whose children are not of school age or who may have moved on. It is not right.
When I spoke this morning, I did not get the opportunity to ask a number of questions, so I will ask those this evening with time permitting. Why are you dismantling group schools? Group schools free up bush teachers to teach. You constantly say this is what you want teachers to do – teach – and the group schools program – the Top End Group Schools and other ones around the Territory, such as the Warlpiri school, are taking the load off teachers and letting small, one classroom schools teach. I call on the bush members from your government to raise this with the minister. What is going on with removing the group schools?
The Isolated Children’s Parents Association spoke with me and they are extremely concerned. My colleague, the member for Nelson, spoke earlier today about pretty drastic concerns parents have that there will only one be adult at a school. That is wrong. There is a program where, with a 12-year-old – do not shake your head, this is the reality – and an eight-year-old, one stays with the class and the other one runs for help to make the phone call. That is wrong, but that is the reality of your cuts in our schools.
I know of schools that cannot fill their timetable, yet your department is ignoring their business plans. These are schools that have their allocation of teachers and know quite well how many students they will have at their school next year. They can do this from actual enrolments, and the primary school feeder is telling them how many kids are coming across. They cannot work their timetable for next year. What are they meant to do? Just wait until the first day of school when they have the students, then the department will say, ‘Oh, actually, yes, you do need a few more teachers’? This is because your contract teachers have gone. No teachers were losing their jobs, yet our contract teachers are gone, so they cannot fulfil their timetables. The principals are in an awkward position. They are saying to some teachers, ‘I am pretty sure I will have a job for you, but you need to do what is best for you’. Then, on the first day of school, there is will be chaos. They will then have to try to find teachers to fill those positions, yet they had fantastic contract teachers who will be lost to the system. This is the reality of what your government is doing. You think we are constantly talking about it, but it is a harsh reality across the Territory, across our middle and senior schools.
The timetabling issue for next year is something principals do not know how to handle and the department is ignoring their requests. I am aware of business plans, sitting with the department, and those are being knocked back or ignored. This is where a school has shown evidence they have this many enrolments for next year, they will need this many teachers, yet the department is just ignoring them. They are losing their contract teachers, they cannot employ anyone else. I am aware of one school, where on one day for one lesson, the principal is in charge of about 300 students. This is the reality of your education cuts, so I call on you to not ignore that any more.
School councils have written to you, local members have written to you, and I am aware it has been quite critical. I am also aware government members have been lobbying you, but we have also been lobbying your office in briefings and have been ignored.
Debate suspended.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, it has taken a while to get here. I move that the Northern Territory government makes no decision over the future of any Aboriginal town communities within the Darwin region, including Adelaide River, until the residents of these communities have been given sufficient opportunities to make informed and independent decisions about what they want. This includes making informed and independent decisions about the ownership of leases.
You are probably aware that over the last few years I have been urging that there is an open review of the future of town communities, especially the One Mile, Knuckey and 15 Mile communities. Two of those communities are in my electorate. I raised this issue as a motion on 5 February 2012. I asked for that review to look at future expansion plans, existing and future land leasing arrangements, home ownership and local government. I said the review should include views of residents, the Aboriginal Development Foundation, relevant housing bodies and all other relevant government and non-government agencies
I also asked if I could be an observer at some of these meetings, because I do have an interest in what happens to the future of these communities. The government set up a body, which was made up mostly of housing associations and other government departments. It included Larrakia Nation and the Aboriginal Development Foundation, but did not include Yilli Rreung which looks after the housing on these communities, and it did not include the residents.
I asked the previous minister what was happening and if I could be on the board. The answer was, ‘Well, you could always write me a letter if you have some problems’, which was a bit rough. I know there is politics in this place but I have an interest in what happens in these communities. Anyone who has been to these communities will understand there are major social problems that need addressing; these problems can be partially addressed, at least, through some sort of vision, which we do not have at present, in relation to the ownership of the land, the houses and municipal services.
The reason for me bringing forward this motion is that I had a telephone call from Aboriginal Development Foundation CEO, Bernie Valadian. He said he had been asked to go to some meetings organised by the Larrakia Nation that were being facilitated by a real estate agent. There was a representative of the government involved and they were going to meet at Finlay’s at Yarrawonga. During the second part of this discussion, I was told they were attempting to convince Bernie Valadian from the Aboriginal Development Foundation to hand over the leases of these parcels of land to the Larrakia Nation. I was surprised about this because I had not heard anything from the government in the form of a report from the review. I had not known there was any move by the government to change the leases over through a third party.
It concerned me that the residents were missing out in this discussion and review that had been set up by the government. I asked some of the residents at the 15 Mile if they knew there had been discussions about Larrakia Nation taking over the lease of the land. They had not heard much except for some comments from Bernie Valadian. I asked if they wanted the Larrakia Nation to take over and they said no. They were pretty straightforward. If they do not understand what you are saying, they will shake their head as if they do not understand what you are talking about, but in this case they were fairly adamant they did not want Larrakia Nation to take over.
I am not here to barrack for Larrakia Nation. I am, however, here to barrack for people in these communities to have a real opportunity to speak for the future of their homes. People forget that although there might be social problems there from time to time, it is where people live and where their homes are. They go to work from there and kids go to school from there.
We do not have any sort of plan or vision for where these communities should go. You would think the right thing for the government to do would be to set up a review to reveal the essential issues that surround the future of this community. I instead found the Minister for Community Services saying, ‘We are only discussing essential services. The issue of land leasing belongs with the department of Lands and Planning.’
Why would you split this up? You are surely not going to talk about leases and the future ownership of houses and not include municipal services? There is a need to talk about local governance arrangements and whether these communities should be included within the local government council for road maintenance rather than being looked after by Yilli Rreung, which does not have a lot of money for major upgrades to infrastructure. The Larrakia Nation does some work in these communities as well.
This idea, which I thought made a bit of sense when split into two, actually splits into three. You had someone from the Chief Minister’s department working with a real estate agent and with Larrakia Nation trying to find a way to get Bernie Valadian from the Aboriginal Development Foundation to hand his leases over to Larrakia Nation. Big mistake; nobody decides to involve the people that live there. ‘They are not relevant to this discussion. We will just have this discussion in Finlay’s restaurant and all will be nice, cosy and complete.’ Regardless of how well you think the Aboriginal Development Foundation operates, you are dealing with a legal entity and they still have the leases over the land. To simply hope someone will hand over the lease, free of charge, is wishful thinking. On the other hand, you have the lands and planning review. I asked the minister for a briefing and I have not had a response. I do not know if it is secret squirrel business and I am not allowed to know what is going on. However, I wrote to the minister asking for a briefing with John Coleman as to where the government is at regarding leases over these communities. It is important it is done in a fairly open and transparent way so we know what is happening.
There was then a third review, from the Minister for Community Services. We are talking about housing. Why would you leave Yilli Rreung out of the housing discussion? They look after all the houses, yet are not on the main board. They have a subcommittee, which has never met. Yilli Rreung should be part of the main discussion group, yet they are not. Guess who is still not on the representative body? The residents. There is no formal section in these reviews saying there is a place for four or five residents from each community to be on this review so their point of view can be heard.
That could not be more important. About two years ago, I was invited to the Yilli Rreung meeting rooms with about 15 to 20 people from the Knuckey Lagoon community. They had an issue with one of the residents causing violence in the community. They met at Yilli Rreung’s office and explained they had gone to the police but it was difficult to get much out of them. I am not saying the police did not act, but it is difficult for the police to act on a constant basis, and they had some concerns. This showed me we have a group of people with no formal ownership in the sense of governance of these communities.
The 15 Mile and Knuckey Lagoon areas have unelected representatives – Phil Goodman at the 15 Mile – or Gurdorrka as it is sometimes called, or Palmerston Indigenous Village – which sounds like something from a manual rather than something real. At Knuckey Lagoon, you have Ronnie Agnew. However, these people have not been elected. They have done leadership courses and that is fine, they are good people. I get on well with them and they do a fairly good job. However, if there is to be some ownership, if people are to understand that these people represent them, some form of governance is needed in these communities so they can say, ‘These are the people we elected to represent us’. At the moment, there is none of that. You have this airy fairy structure which does not have a concrete basis if you are talking about a strong form of governance. You have issues of tenancies and leases.
Theoretically, if Yilli Rreung has a management agreement over a house, they can kick people out, but they cannot necessarily kick people off the land. If someone is damaging the house, or there is a fight in the house and they order all those people out, they can get them off the veranda and, as far as I know, that then belongs to the Aboriginal Development Foundation. You would have to get Bernie to state that these people need to leave the property. You have some issues which need to be clarified as well.
You then have the issue of whether the people should have the right to buy these houses. I raised this with some women some time ago and asked if they would like to buy a house. They said, ‘Yes, but how would we pay for it?’ I said, ‘You pay for it instead of paying rent. You would put that money towards the mortgage.’ Some people would be interested, though I am not saying it would be for everybody.
Is it possible the 15 Mile could be divided into blocks and they could be part of a normal subdivision? Of course, that raises a bigger issue.
What is the future of these communities? Are they just an Aboriginal community on the outskirts of Palmerston, right next to Johnston? I hope the member does not get too excited. Last time I mentioned Third World, she thought I was talking about Johnston – looking at the graffiti on the fence that has not been removed, I am starting to wonder.
However, over the road from a fairly affluent suburb is a place that is an anomaly in some ways, even though I know the history of it. That issue needs to be addressed and it is not a simple issue. I have no doubt people are probably very comfortable living together, and it may be that is the way it should be.
I ask the minister for Lands and Planning – I mentioned this last time I was in parliament – what the chances are of putting the 15 Mile on the sewerage system? You are building this suburb right up to the highway. I am wondering whether you have given any attention to the possibility of removing all septic tanks at the 15 Mile and connecting them to the main sewer system. If we were to have a proper review, those are some of the issues that can be covered.
Another issue is future expansion. Where do we go? The 15 Mile is nearly full. I do not think there is much room where you could expand. However, Knuckey Lagoon may have opportunities. I should repeat that, so you can catch it. I was asking whether there is a chance of the government looking at connecting sewerage to the 15 Mile, since Johnston is just across the road. All those people have septics as far as I know. I thought it would be a good opportunity to get rid of them. It is not far across, and I am sure we could drill a hole under the road as they do with modern equipment today. I thought while I have you here, I would mention it; you cannot miss an opportunity in this world.
The other issue is expansion. Yilli Rreung, for instance, was looking at the possibility of putting a visitor centre at the 15 Mile. That may not be the right thing. Once again, there should be discussions with the community and the residents before anything like that happens. I think their idea was something similar to the visitor centre in Alice Springs, which is an excellent place. It was provided with mainly Commonwealth government funding. The visitor centre in Alice Springs is where people can stay for two weeks when they are going to hospital. They can stay in a tent – I am not talking about any old tent; it is a solid tent that is permanent – or you can stay in some basic or very nice accommodation, depending on what you want to pay. There may be opportunities for part of the 15 Mile to be looked at for that.
However, as I said, I have asked for a briefing. I am interested. Sometimes, people say, ‘Oh, you are just a politician, so who cares?’ I hope I am a politician who cares. I do not speak, as people might say, for the sake of hearing my own voice; do not like the sound of my own voice when I hear it on the radio, I can tell you. However, it is no good me just speaking for the sake of speaking.
The issues with the 15 Mile and Knuckey Lagoon have been around for a long time, and there comes a time when we hope we can get together to try to solve some of the issues. In the end, I do not care if the minister says I cannot be an observer; I will live with that. I am more concerned that the residents are involved in your discussions about leasing and who owns the land, and are involved in discussions about governance, housing, and community services. I do not think we should have the Chief Minister sending someone off doing secret negotiations with the Aboriginal Development Foundation and somebody else without the residents being part of those decisions.
I cannot stress it more: for many people, this is their home. People have lived there for quite a while. Of course, there are people who drift in and out; there is a lot of that. Of course, there are problems with alcohol and drugs. It is still a community – sometimes dysfunctional, fractured and violent, but you can go there other times and it is a great community. There are fine people you can sit down with and talk to. Unfortunately, their lives are mixed up in some of the issues that permeate some of these places.
I do not think we can sit around and hope things will get better; we have to be proactive. We have to understand the history of these communities. They were set up, basically, for people who came to town. In many cases, they came to town to get drunk, and they had a place where they could rest and sleep the grog off for the night. People from different communities in the Territory came there.
I recently had the privilege of launching the book Maningrida by Helen Bond Sharp. I have read the book and I have always known Maningrida people who have been at the 15 Mile, and there are a few of them there presently. She mentioned that a long time ago – probably the 1930s – Maningrida people were aware of a place called Darwin. During that time, they drifted up to Gunn Point and the outskirts of Darwin. They came to see the bright lights. They may not have been that bright in the 1930s, but they were attracted to the area.
These communities have had that history for a long time. One Mile Dam is connected to Belyuen, Delissaville, and people from my wife’s family and others. There were people from Port Keats, Daly River, Adelaide River and Maningrida at Knuckey Lagoon, and there were also people from the Tiwi Islands and Jabiru at 15 Mile. The reason is historical, but we have moved on. We have built good houses there, and if you were to go there, you would see some houses that are not so good. If you looked at my house, with a demountable down the middle, you would probably say, ‘Well, that is a beaut house’. There are some top houses there but, unfortunately, they do get vandalised and much of that has to do with grog; we have all these issues.
I would have thought the common sense thing would be to get people together, to have a review that included the residents. What I have seen so far is three reviews: one from the Chief Minister looking at something, while the minister for Lands and Planning is looking at leasing, and over here we have the minister looking at community services. I do not know why we did not do this together, bring the residents together and have a good meeting, not too formal. Do not put them in a building like this. If we could have it out there, it would be far better, where they feel far more at home. You could start to work your way through some of these issues so we can come up with some answers. If we do not try and do not include the residents, we will fail.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for bringing on this motion. We support this motion because it recognises many of the residents of these communities are also people with legal property rights that should be respected. They are members of associations and representative bodies that hold the leases for the land occupied by the communities. At Acacia, Larrakia people understand there are also traditional owners with inalienable rights under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act. Property rights are protected by our legal system and, ultimately, the Australian Constitution. If government does not want to compulsorily acquire property rights, a pathway is available, but this is complicated by a lengthy legal process and requires appropriate compensation.
Aboriginal land, under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act, is inalienable land and offers a very high level of protection for the property rights of traditional owners. For all his huffing and puffing and grandstanding on Alice Springs town camps, former Liberal Indigenous Affairs minister, Mal Brough, quickly discovered this for himself. Legal issues played a large part in his plans for acquisition of lease interests in Alice Springs town camps. He promised take overs and intervention in Alice Springs town camps, but quickly found the housing associations holding the town camp leases had property rights protected under law, as they should be.
It took former Labor minister Macklin, with a bit more patience, goodwill and a capacity to negotiate, to break through, by listening, negotiating and ultimately concluding an agreement to the Alice Springs transformation plan, and make major progress in improving infrastructure, services and family life in those town camps, as well as wider benefits for the whole Alice Springs community.
The issue distracting from progress has been the CLP scrapping the Banned Drinker Register. This has put drunks back on tap and is creating more pressure on the residents of Alice Springs town camps, struggling with waves of intoxicated visitors and violence associated with alcohol abuse.
The Darwin town camps have a long history and many traditions associated with them. It is not for a government of any persuasion to deny the history of the residents, their family history, community identity and attachment to these places. They know as well as anyone the issues they have to deal with and how they would like to see the communities develop. At Yilli Rreung housing, which provides services to many of these communities, Colin Tidswell and his team have done some great work in recent times, developing plans for affordable housing and links to pathways to full employment.
At Bagot, we have seen the community partner with the University of Melbourne and others to create a logical and coherent plan for development of that community. It is important that town camps are better connected to the broader community through schools, jobs and local government services. As part of their own desire for better connection to the broader Darwin community, it was great to see the Bagot community welcoming visitors into their homes as part of NAIDOC week this year. ABC radio also reported live on events from the Bagot community. The member for Fong Lim often talks of his desire to see more openness at Bagot and to have it connected to the wider community. This was a great example of that community doing exactly that.
At the Palmerston Indigenous Village, residents have been working for some time on improving their local community governance and readiness for planning the future of their community. They will struggle in finding support for basic issues such as road access to their community. There are many practical issues government should be focusing on rather than proclamations of intervention and acquisition of land. This is why we supported the motion of the member for Nelson in May 2012. It was aimed at establishing a working group to review the development of town camps in the Darwin region, including future expansions, land leasing arrangements, home ownership and interaction with local government.
Importantly, our support at that time was, in part, based on the premise the review should include feedback from residents, the Aboriginal Development Foundation – a key lease holder - the relevant government agencies and NGOs. It was premised on cooperation and partnerships, working together to move forward. It included an amendment to involve the Commonwealth; they helped establish the communities and a role of support for housing, essential services and other activities.
The then member for Braitling, now Chief Minister, said at the time:
The member for Braitling had obviously observed the Mal Brough style in Alice Springs and saw how his attack approach went nowhere. Alternatively, perhaps he had his eye on the 2012 election and his leadership ambitions and wanted to present a friendly face to people in Darwin. The member for Braitling added to a debate on the Darwin town camps in March 2013 when he again talked about the need for a new direction and how the new CLP government would work together with town camp residents and housing associations to provide sustainability. This was in contrast to the member for Fong Lim, who has a track record of grandstanding on the future of Bagot. In August 2012 he produced an election brochure saying he would turn Bagot into a subdivision where anyone could buy a house and the CLP would engage the Larrakia Development Corporation to design and cost a subdivision of affordable housing. More recently, the NT News has reported the member for Fong Lim saying the NT government wants to see Bagot redeveloped into a suburb. That is an election commitment.
In that same news report, well-known Darwin lawyer Lex Silvester said there were major stumbling blocks that could cost millions of dollars and bog down the process for years in legal challenges. Is it the member for Fong Lim’s commitment or a commitment binding on the government as a whole? There are now further media reports of the member for Fong Lim discussing plans for development of One Mile Dam with Larrakia Nation. Also, in September this year, the Minister for Community Services issued a media release saying the government was working with key stakeholders on how to better deliver essential services to the Darwin town camps. This is a long way short of the idea the task force would review development and plans to help address issues relating to expansion plans, home ownership and land tenure.
What is going on? We are seeing this government developing the habit of cutting corners and striking shonky deals to give an impression they have a plan for the future and are getting on with the job of developing the Northern Territory. However, these deals, whether they be about water allocation or land leasing on the Tiwi Islands, always seem to have an air of shonkyness and having been cobbled together without due regard to process or meaningful consultation with affected Territorians.
This Assembly previously agreed to a plan and a way forward on Darwin town camps: the establishment of a task force to take forward the issues relating to the development of these town camps involving the residents. Those plans seem to have been derailed, as the government, and most notably the Treasurer, appear to be off to the side making deals with developers and leaving residents behind. We call on the government to stop the side deals and start talking to residents as well as their representative bodies and developers. We call on the government to give the residents of our town camps confidence that the government recognises their history and place in the community and will work with them to deliver the kind of future we all want for these families: a well-developed community with better housing options for residents, including home ownership. I commend the motion to the House.
Mr CHANDLER (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Madam Speaker, I welcome the motion tonight from the member for Nelson. In many regards, I agree with much of what he has said. The issue of town camps, not only in the greater Darwin area, but in other places in the Territory, has been put in the too hard basket for too long. I recall doing some research recently and information which came to hand was the former Territory government did a bit of work on this in about 2008. I believe it was after the 2007 intervention, where there was talk of normalising camps and things like that. It was interesting to look at the legal work undertaken in about 2008. However, it was obviously all too hard for the previous government; they did not have the courage to take on any of those hard ones. For too long, these issues have been put in the too hard basket and we, the Country Liberals, will not shy away from taking action in some of these areas.
It should be put in context that town camps were initially established as temporary accommodation for people travelling from remote communities into Darwin. They have long since become permanent or long-term residences. There are no proper tenancy arrangements in place, which is problematic in itself. There is no real security of tenure for people living there and they do not share the same rights as ordinary tenants. These things should have been tackled years ago, not in 2013 – perhaps five or 10 years ago, even longer. The question regarding who owns the properties and, ultimately, who has responsibility for maintaining them is always a concern. The problems are well entrenched, and previous governments left them lying in the too hard basket. This government is of the view these issues deserve closer scrutiny and is why my department of Lands and Planning has been active.
I want to assure the member for Nelson that, unlike Labor, there are no shonky deals going on here. This is open and accountable. There are negotiations occurring and some of the issues you brought up today – because of the nature of those discussions, it would be premature to say who they are with, but the people you spoke about not being in the loop, I can assure you, are in the loop. There are discussions happening with all groups involved. The concerns you raised are relevant and are why we need these groups involved. There are some real issues in regard to certain backgrounds, certain Indigenous families, certain groups that have things written into their constitutions which we need to scrutinise further before any decisions are made in these areas.
I assure you, member for Nelson, the government will consult with residents about any changes affecting them. You asked for a briefing and I assure you I can follow that up and it will be done. Working with you on this – it is something you are quite passionate about and you feel similar to me. It has been left for too long and there are complications.
The member for Johnston said if the member for Fong Lim went down the road of trying to normalise Bagot, he would be locked in the courts for years. Those are complications that if you have the courage to take them on, you deal with. It is easy to put them in the too hard basket; this is another area that has been put in the too hard basket for too long. You will be provided a briefing, member for Nelson. I was going to refer to your media release, but we had a bit of a chat about that release going out. I can assure you again, there are negotiations going on and the right people are being consulted at the moment.
We need to make inroads in this area. For far too long, too many people have been living in residences that, in some cases, are well below standards. The issue I am concerned about is their rights as tenants; there do not seem to be any rights. I would like to think we can move to a day where long-term leasing arrangements at places like Knuckey Lagoon could be available for Indigenous people to purchase the properties there, to have rights over those properties so they have something, a legacy they can pass on to their families – the same with the 15 Mile at Palmerston Indigenous Village, across the road from our place. That is another area that could be expanded.
You talked about sewerage. If other developments go our way, sewerage in that particular area is on the cards. The reality is the Territory is growing. There will be some development opportunities, particularly in the area of housing, and if that brings forward the ability to provide sewerage for that camp that would be fantastic. There are ways to expand and provide better facilities for these camps, but we should be going down the road of providing tenure for people. That can be done; under the legal frameworks we have today, with the type of leases we have, the special leases the camps come under could be converted to other types of leases that allow houses and property line surveys so we have the ability for Indigenous people to take ownership. That is the way we would be moving into the future with our town camps.
Regarding the One Mile Dam area, most people have seen the master plan for the Darwin CBD area, which involves pushing out through the old tank farms into the One Mile Dam area. We should be working with the Indigenous organisations about the best way to utilise that land. The city will expand. The master plan for Darwin is a fantastic document. It will require that area to be developed, but I prefer to do that with the assistance of and in collaboration with Indigenous organisations, because it is important. The city will grow and we need to take on some of the issues that have been left for a long time. Will they be complicated? They will be complicated, as the member for Johnston said. Will there be court cases? There may be court cases, but if you negotiate with people in good faith and understand their needs, you can bring them along on the journey of moving towards better access to properties, better services and long-term security. You have an understanding there because that is what we would try to achieve with many of these camps.
Overall, there are good service providers which can provide ongoing services for these areas. However, under the current leasing arrangements, it is made that much more complicated. Good negotiations and understanding can move mountains in this area and do for the town camps what should probably have been done many years ago. Will it be hard? Perhaps it is hard. It was perhaps put in the too hard basket by previous governments. You do not know until you try. If you get halfway down the road and, all of a sudden, it is going to cost you millions of dollars in court cases, you might have to reassess. However, the reality is you should have the courage to take it on and try to improve, wherever possible, the lifestyles, tenure and security of the tenants who live in the town camps. I am happy to arrange that briefing for you.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his encouraging words. I do not know whether that means if we put this motion to a vote you will support it. I hope you will because it covered exactly what you said. You said you would involve the residents, and that is important.
I am disappointed the Minister for Community Services did not speak on this because, from my understanding, there are two reviews happening: one through the Department of Community Services and one through the department of Lands and Planning. You cannot really have one without the other and I was hoping I could have received some response from the Department of Community Services in relation to this. When I have spoken to people about whether they are being involved in this review, they have said no. They have said, ‘Oh, we were supposed to be, but we have not been involved in the review’. My concern, as it has been since the start of this campaign, is that residents have a say. Unless that happens, there will be decisions from the top, not decisions from the bottom, and we will not bring the people along with those decisions.
When I mentioned the word ‘sewerage’, I was thinking of a pipe across the highway, which is about 200m from Johnston to the 15 Mile community. The minister said, ‘Well, we are looking at expanding more housing opportunities’. Madam Speaker - who lives up the road from there - I am not sure people would be too pleased to see 400m2 blocks along Wallaby Holtze Road.
There is an argument in the department which seems to say, ‘Well, if you want sewerage, you have small blocks’. There is no argument about small blocks. We want rural blocks and if you want to have small blocks and you want to develop another township, it should be done as the greater Darwin plan was originally designed. This plan was created around having a series of cities around Darwin Harbour, which I always believed was one of the better plans for a city, rather than an urban sprawl. I certainly will not support urban sprawl just because land is available. I have heard this debate before that if you want sewerage to Howard Springs you will have lots of little blocks.
There is revolution in the air because I know there are already people - I know there is a Sydney company and I have been briefed by a person who has been involved in negotiations with this company. It is looking at carving up parcels of land in the rural subdivisions for small blocks. If the government is moving with that plan, they will certainly have a fight on their hands.
The member for Goyder and I brought out a plan, which we believe made sense, about developing a mosaic of district centres which included small subdivisions, but retained the basic rule of rural subdivisions. The minister was talking about expanding the 15 Mile, and I do not have a great problem there, because it is already developed. It is presently in the boundaries of Palmerston, although if it develops further to the east it will cross over the boundary and into Litchfield shire, which would raise other issues.
I thank the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure for ensuring a road to the 15 Mile will be built. I am not sure whether it will be bitumen or not, but I hope it is. As people might have known, this was one of the other issues floating around these communities. The 15 Mile did not have any legal access. They were not allowed access from the Stuart Highway and they were coming down on the Power and Water easement to have access. That had been the way for years since the Country Liberals government granted that community that parcel of land. It might have been acceptable when the Stuart Highway was a smaller road, but it certainly was not acceptable later on. There was actually no legal access to that community.
What has happened now is the road to the bus depot – where the buses are parked that move the INPEX workers – has been extended through to the 15 Mile. I thank the government for that. It is important the community was given legal and all-weather access because it was the case last year, or the year before, where an ambulance could not get through because the ground was so boggy.
The minister did mention there were no proper tenancies in place, no rights for tenants, and I do not believe I have not heard that before. I had presumed there were tenancy arrangements with Yilli Rreung and the Aboriginal Development Foundation. That must be a part of some of the discussions, because the people who live in the houses need rights, as do the people who maintain those houses. It is very difficult to maintain those houses in a fit condition if you do not have any rules and regulations or if they are not clearly written so people understand their responsibilities.
It was good to hear the minister is willing to consult with residents; that was the key to what I was asking. I am glad the minister will give me a briefing; knowing the way I send e-mails it might have gone into cyberspace, but I did send a request for a briefing. It is good to hear he is consulting with all people – people involved in the ownership of the land and the houses – and he is looking at possible alternatives for tenure on those areas, such as long-term leases over the houses so people can get some certainty.
He is right when he said this was in the too hard basket. I had some discussions with the previous government and there were some difficult issues in relation to the ownership of the land; changing ownership of the land is not a simple thing. There were legal complications there and if the government wanted to take over that land, it would have been a cost to the government. The minister is right to say it was, to some extent, in the too hard basket. As it got closer to the election, it just faded away. It is good to see it is now at least back on the agenda.
I am pleased the department is active in making some plans. The minister talked about some expansion; I would be interested to see what that is and they will hopefully cover that at the briefing. As I said, the 15 Mile can be expanded and you can put the sewerage in but do not see that as an incremental move into the rural area. We might have some land affordability issues, but we can resolve some of that by developing rural blocks. Not all land has to be little blocks; rural blocks can be subdivided at a reasonably cheap price. A 1 ha block can have septic, it does not have to have sewerage, and it does not have to have stormwater drainage, kerb and guttering. Those blocks could be turned off at a relatively moderate price. There is land in the area for that to be done.
To sum up, I say thank you, minister, for your response. I hope the Minister for Community Services can give me an update as to the progress of the review. It is important I find out that residents are being involved, otherwise I will not be pleased. I will think it is a top down review rather than a bottom up review which needs to happen. The residents are important and should not be forgotten. Just as we are talking about the changes to the local government boundaries - I have the feeling the residents are not being involved. A few of the, you might say, louder people are being asked and are making their point. That is fine, but that is not what this is all about. Just as I want the residents to be involved here, so should the residents of those proposed council areas affected by new boundaries.
Motion agreed to.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I move that this Assembly condemns this government for:
1. failing to implement the 2012 CLP election commitment to undertake flood mitigation at Rapid Creek
2. failing to complete and release by 31 December 2012 the flood study promised by the CLP Chief Minister, Terry Mills
3. failing to consult with local residents and Landcare groups about future plans or works for Rapid Creek
5. scrapping the Rapid Creek catchment advisory group.
As the local member for this area, there has not been a single issue I have been more frustrated with than this. I have spoken about Rapid Creek flooding time and time again in this parliament, with few outcomes from the government. According to the latest news report, the CLP government might finally have something more to say, which I welcome in their response.
During the 2012 Territory election campaign, both sides of politics knew Rapid Creek was an important issue. The CLP promised, on 20 August 2012, and I quote from their press release:
It is pretty straightforward. The CLP promised two things: money and flood mitigation. A year later, what has happened to this ever strong commitment from the CLP? It is the same as many of their other broken election promises. The $1.5m promised was halved to $750 000 in the mini-budget as things were, as described then, ‘very tight in the budget.’ They cut this commitment in half yet found $300 000 for the Sports minister’s golf club. With regard to flood mitigation, the people living in Rapid Creek and Millner are no better off now than they were then. With the weather over the weekend, residents had flashbacks of that scary and traumatic night, flashbacks of waking their children and evacuating their homes in the middle of the night, memories of water levels rising higher and higher and their properties being damaged along with their cars and possessions.
Unfortunately, residents’ fears are founded because the CLP government, to date, has not undertaken any flood mitigation at Rapid Creek. We know the CLP have reneged on their 2012 election commitments, and we are left to wonder what they have done in their 15 months in office.
I turn to a letter I received from the then elected Chief Minister, Terry Mills, in December 2012. It was a response to the concerns I raised with him about Rapid Creek, as the local member. I wish to quote directly from that letter:
To date, no flood study report has been released.
The letter goes on to talk about the preliminary investigation into the flood mitigation options report and says the following:
The former Chief Minister wrote this letter in December 2012. I believe he would have tried his best to honour the commitments outlined in his letter – to honour the release of the flood study and the maps, followed by releasing the final report early in the new year. We all know history has shown us it was never to be.
In March 2013, the elected Chief Minister, Terry Mills, was knifed as Chief Minister, along with his ability to progress this issue and honour his commitments. Instead, we ended up with the current Chief Minister, who has shown and done little for residents of Rapid Creek and Millner. To date, 27 November 2013, not a single report has been released by the CLP government, and for that this government should be condemned.
It does not stop there. In my letter, as a candidate, to residents during the 2012 Territory election – along with Labor committing $2.5m, $1m more than promised by the CLP – I recall the final statement of that letter:
As elected members of parliament, there are some things we must do, and one is consult. We live in a democracy and we must always speak to the public who elect us to office. The CLP government has failed in that respect. The CLP government never told residents about their downgraded commitment from $1.5m to $750 000. They never told residents what was happening with the studies and reports and where things were up to. Most importantly, they did not talk to residents or the local Landcare groups when they decided to mark over 100 trees in Rapid Creek with big pink crosses, earmarked for destruction. Naturally, the community was up in arms. The Minister for Infrastructure tried to smooth it over, saying it was routine and did not mean they were being cut down; a poor public servant was blamed as well. However, the buck stops with the minister and the instructions he gives to his department; the trees were not marked with ticks, they were marked with an X or marked with the word ‘prune’. You do not need to be a genius to figure out what the X meant.
The CLP government has failed to consult residents across Jingili, Millner, Rapid Creek and Nightcliff who were distraught that the Rapid Creek they knew was to be bulldozed. The Minister for Infrastructure tried to blame Labor for creating hysteria, instead of accepting his decisions as minister had led to the trees being marked and the mass community outcry. If there is any good to come of this, it is that the CLP government has learnt its lesson.
Minister Chandler, from what I am hearing, is committed to releasing the report to the public and allowing time for consultation. Releasing at the right time? This is debatable because of the lead up to Christmas and being after parliament. Consulting for long enough? This is again debatable, if it is only for two weeks. Nonetheless, he has said he will release the report and consult the community, and I welcome that announcement. The sooner the report is released and the community is consulted, the quicker we can undertake works to stop the flooding of the homes of these residents.
Finally, I want to mention the CLP’s decision to scrap the Rapid Creek catchment advisory group. I commend the work of my colleague, the member for Nightcliff, who has chased this matter up with the CLP government. However, the response has been disappointing. The CLP government is not interested in continuing with the valuable work of this committee that is dedicated to the Rapid Creek catchment area. It is a crying shame, given the committee’s support, advocacy and advice is exactly what is needed to ensure this is done properly. Maybe the minister for Lands and Planning will reinstate this advisory group.
The facts speak for themselves. I do not believe I have acted differently to any other local member in my place in highlighting what was promised and pointing out what was delivered. The CLP government has fast developed their official trademark and motto: over-promising and under-delivering. Unfortunately for the people who live near Rapid Creek, they are the latest in the string of Territorians left stranded by the CLP’s disastrous approach. Some in the CLP may say on one hand you want something done but, on the other hand, you do not. I will make it very clear: I want the CLP to honour it promises, to reinstate the full $1.5m committed on 20 August 2012, to release the report to the public as soon as possible and to consult with the community.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, it is always interesting listening to the member for Johnston try to talk about Rapid Creek. I was listening and I asked the minister if he would mind if I said a few words. I thought it would be good to see what the member for Johnston sees as the solution to addressing the flooding issue. What I just heard at the end of his very short speech – he does not go the whole distance – was ‘consult, release a report, and make sure there is money available’. I do not think any of those three things will reduce the impact of flooding in the Rapid Creek area.
I ask you, in your summation, member for Johnston, to provide us with a solution you believe will be the best thing to stop the flooding in Rapid Creek and the inundation of houses. I know on your side of the Chamber you cannot agree on the solution, whether it is cleaning out some of the waterways or providing any other solutions. Member for Johnston, in your wrap up, come up with a solution the residents of Rapid Creek will be happy with.
We will release a report and provide everything we have committed to, but you provide a solution you think can be done, rather than just putting up fairy tale things that will not stop the inundation of Rapid Creek.
Mr CHANDLER (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Madam Speaker, goodness gracious me, talk about leading with your chin! You spoke on the last motion, member for Johnston, about dodgy deals after what has been released in the last couple of days about Stella Maris. You also come off the back of 11 years of a Labor government that did nothing in the Rapid Creek area. To confuse things even further, you issued a media release on 17 September, telling and willing us to get on with it. ‘You promised you would fix flooding, get on with it!’ On 24 September, it was ‘stop the bulldozers’ from the member for Nightcliff, Natasha Fyles; ‘stop the bulldozers, hug the trees, save the trees!’ Not even on your side, member for Johnston, do you have you a plan because you want us to get on with the bulldozers and fix the problem, and your colleague issued a media release not a week later, saying ‘stop the bulldozers’. What is it, member for Johnston? What do you want us to do? Do we do exactly what the Labor Party did for their eleven-and-a-half years in government: nothing?
We committed to undertake a study to see what could be done to mitigate some of the issues with flooding in Rapid Creek. I would suggest the rains came down for many decades before I was on this earth and will continue for many eons after. The reality is there will always be severe rain events. If those severe rain events occur at the same time as a king tide or high tide in Darwin Harbour, in the Rapid Creek area you will have the convergence of two things, and that is water. For any government to say it can mitigate or prevent 100% of flooding in any river way or any of our coastal areas around this country – if you live on the coast or on any river system in this country, at some time or another, you are likely to be inundated with flooding. I for one, as the minister for Lands and Planning, do not want to raise expectations to the level that we will be able to mitigate, 100%, flooding in the Rapid Creek area. I cannot do it, I cannot hold back the rains and I certainly cannot hold back the tides. What we can do is take the report we have before us, go to the community in an open fashion and talk about some of the solutions to help mitigate the flooding in Rapid Creek – not prevent it but mitigate some of the flooding.
There are some medium- and long-term solutions to what we could possibly do as a government, but I have to stress it will not mitigate 100% of flooding in the Rapid Creek area. We have looked at some of these things and will consult with the general public who live in the area. They should be involved in this because they should know what the recommendations are and then, as a community, help the government make the decision on what we should do; while it will not mitigate 100% of the flooding, there are solutions. There will be people in the community who are not happy. The member for Nightcliff will probably not be happy because it might mean we have to use a bulldozer and clean out the silt from underneath the roadways, clean out the pipeworks so water can at least flow away a lot quicker than it does at the moment.
I listened to the Treasurer the other day when he was telling me about other pipeworks; he had paid personally to have a camera used inside a pipe, which I found interesting. He found there was a lot of silt build up in many pipes around Darwin that had built up over time through heavy rain events that have taken topsoil and sand away which has flowed into some of the pipeworks. There are probably many pipeworks that could be cleaned out, including those at Rapid Creek, under the Kimmorley Bridge. I was there and saw a large amount of silt. I am sure if some works were to be undertaken there to remove some of the silt, bound trees and shrubbery in the area, it would help the water flow. It is a double-edged sword in whatever we do because if we improve the flow in one direction, it improves the flow in the other direction.
There have even been thoughts of levy banks. Levy banks will work to a certain extent, but if you have a major rain event, coinciding with a high tide and those levy banks are breached in any way, you can have back flooding. This can be worse than initial flooding because often the water cannot get away once it is kept back by a levy bank. You then have ongoing issues of flooding for quite a while. There are no easy solutions to any of this. A levy bank is probably not feasible. If you did put a levy bank in, it would be a double-edged sword. It could cause more problems. Having had the opportunity to visit New Orleans a few years ago, about 22 months after Hurricane Katrina, I saw what flooding can do. The power of water can move homes; it was incredible. Many of the problems in New Orleans happened because the city filled up and the water could not get away because of the levy banks, so these banks can come with their own issues as well.
Member for Johnston, we have heard loud and clear. We have done the required studies, we now have a report and the next step is to go to the community. I give you an absolute commitment; those advertisements will go in the paper in the next week or so. We will set up some community consultation and we will work with the community to find the best solutions we can achieve within our means.
The one thing I do not want – this has become a political football. It gets confusing because on one hand you are calling for us to get on with the job and get it done and, yet, you have your good friend, the member for Nightcliff, saying ‘stop the bulldozers’, getting in the way and wanting to hug the trees. Your own side does not have a solution to this. You are at odds with each other on what should be done in the Rapid Creek area.
This is on the back of eleven-and-a-half years of a Labor government that did not seem to think it was a problem beforehand. In opposition, the world has turned. Maybe it rains more, maybe the tides are higher than they previously were. The reality is, Rapid Creek has not changed that much, although some of the feedback we have been receiving and comments in the paper or on social media indicate there has been a huge increase in mangroves in the creek over the years. Is that a factor in why the water does not flow as well today as it once did? People talk about what it was like in the area 20 and 30 years ago and things have changed. There is runoff from the airport that is contributing to much of the drainage coming down Rapid Creek today compared to what it once was.
There is truth in all of that but the reality is Rapid Creek has been there for many years and no one has seen fit to do anything about it beforehand, certainly not a Labor government for eleven-and-a-half-years. Even now you are at odds as a party on what we should do in the future. One wants to hug trees and one, like yourself, wants us to get a D9, strip it, clean it out and improve the water flow. Maybe that is one of the recommendations we need to act on, but I will not be making that decision without bringing the community along. The community needs to know what the report says, what the recommendations are and what we can reasonably do as a government to start to work on mitigating some of the flooding issues in Rapid Creek. That is the commitment you have from us.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for spraying me for a couple of minutes in his contribution. He did not say much; there was nothing great that I can pass on to the residents of Rapid Creek Road in Millner, but I appreciate him coming into the Chamber. I thank the minister for Lands and Planning for his contribution and I will pick up on a few points. The Chief Minister was asking me what I would do. The first thing I would do, if I was the Chief Minister and in government, is fulfil my election commitments – what you promised the people you would do. It is a first rule of government to say, ‘We promised this, let us knock it off and do what we said we were going to do’. You are the government, you are the minister, you are the Chief Minister. You make those decisions, not me.
We are in opposition. We are here for a reason, as we have been told many times. We respect the fact we have been put here; we did not win the election. You made election commitments, you must fulfil them. If we were in government we would be doing that, as we did for 11 years. You ask what I would do? I would consult with the experts, consult with the Rapid Creek Landcare Group and, more importantly, consult with residents. I would reinstate the Rapid Creek catchment advisory group, which the minister disbanded. The Chief Minister can perhaps ask one of his drivers for directions to the Rapid Creek markets on a Sunday and stand at my office and listen to concerned residents who are there every weekend talking about this issue.
He may sit here and throw barbs and laugh about this issue, but this is an important issue for residents of Rapid Creek Road and Millner. I heard stories, when I was a candidate, and I hear them every Sunday, about families, in the middle of the night – 1 m of water – getting their kids out of their rooms and saving their lives. You made the commitment, fulfil it! I repeat, come to the Rapid Creek markets on a Sunday and listen to residents. I am sure you do not know how to get there. You would have to ask a taxi driver or one of your drivers to drop you there, but come and listen to the residents, face to face, and see if you are laughing then.
I thank the minister for Lands and Planning for his commitment. I genuinely believe the minister, and the then elected Chief Minister, Terry Mills, and their promise to fulfil the commitment you guys made in August 2012. I have said this many times, and although the Chief Minister might laugh and mock me, let us get politics out of this issue. Let us get the report out; let us work together to talk to the residents, to doorknock residents and organise a meeting. I am more than happy to offer my services to get the residents to a meeting in my office or anywhere to resolve this issue together. Let us stop playing politics and get it sorted because we can have argy bargy all night and every sittings but nothing is being done.
We have waited over a year for this report. We know a report was done, because we had one done. This is about getting rid of politics, highlighting the issue, moving on and getting this done.
I thank the minister. I bumped into him during the week and we had a good chat about what the report contained, an action plan, and what his moves will be. This is all about me holding the government to account saying, ‘Get this report out and talk to people’. That is what it is all about. Let us get the politics out of it and look after the residents of Johnston, especially Millner and Rapid Creek Road; let us do this together.
I would talk to the experts, talk to the Rapid Creek Landcare Group. We have always said works need to be done, let us do them together. When you talk to the experts, talk to the Rapid Creek Landcare Group and ask, ‘How do we do this sensitively? This is the work that needs to be done, how do we do something we can all agree to?’ Let us get the issue sorted. This is about families, not about you, Chief Minister and not about me. This is about the families of Millner and those who live along Rapid Creek. Thank you.
Motion negatived.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I move that this Assembly:
1. condemns the actions of Chief Minister Adam Giles in reneging on the gas to Gove deal which has plunged Nhulunbuy and the northeast Arnhem Land region into a crisis that remains unresolved
2. calls on the Chief Minister to update this Assembly on actions he has taken to repair the Territory’s relationship with Rio Tinto and to lobby for the refinery to stay operational
3. calls on the Chief Minister to visit Nhulunbuy before the end of this year to explain to families and businesses what social and economic impact analysis has occurred and to fully disclose what it shows.
This is an incredibly serious situation my electorate finds itself in. We condemn the actions of the Chief Minister, whose mishandling of the whole gas to Gove issue is at the centre of this deepening crisis we see in Gove now. Things have taken a turn for the worse in the last couple of days.
We know the actions of the Chief Minister are in train with what is a dysfunctional and chaotic government in crisis, but when you start dragging Territorians into that crisis – thanks to the incompetence of the government – I am deeply and gravely concerned, as are the people of the wider Gove region. We are talking about thousands of people. It is not just the township of Nhulunbuy where Rio Tinto has its operations; it is about the impacts on the wider region that will flow on to the Territory and, indeed, the national economy.
Gove has been in limbo for months. It will be about two years at the start of next year since the company decided to divest its unprofitable sites and package them up into a single company called Pacific Aluminium. There were a number of assets, which included the Gove alumina refinery. Amongst those assets was the only bauxite mine, and it is a very high grade ore.
People in the community were rattled about what the future might hold when they made that announcement. Under the new brand of Pacific Aluminium, a huge effort was launched to try to turn the company around. This included reaching at least a cost neutral position in a resources market where the alumina prices were going down and operating costs were going up.
One of the critical things, as we all know, was the need for the refinery and its operations – being the generator of power for the whole of the Gove peninsula – to be able to convert their power station from a heavy fuel oil source of energy to gas. It is cleaner, cheaper and something that would deliver long-term sustainability and viability. It is far more environmentally friendly, not only for the reduction in emissions but for the risks it would minimise by being able to pipe in gas as opposed to shipping, as they have done for 40 years, with big tankers every six weeks from Kuwait carrying sizeable loads of heavy fuel oil . Post-election, the need to convert to gas ramped up considerably because, after the election, it was taken to the new CLP government in the Northern Territory.
For the first time, the company was saying that without converting to gas it would have to consider curtailment of refinery operations. That was the very first time that language had been used, with the worst case scenario of not converting to gas and, because of their rising costs and considerable accumulated losses, it would need to consider curtailment of the refinery operations.
That certainly rattled people. The Chief Minister at the time, the member for Blain, quite apart from leading a new government and being a new Chief Minister, had an awful lot to deal with. There was a lot happening at the end of last year: cuts to public servant numbers, mini-budgets, slashing millions of dollars; basically upsetting an awful lot of people in the Northern Territory and then having to deal with a crisis in Gove with a company desiring to convert to gas and calling upon the Northern Territory to assist it in that process.
It was a very long and difficult road for the member for Blain; I am sure he remembers it vividly. There was a lot of hard work and a lot of travel. I was critical of him at the time in that I believe he was slow to act and people in Gove were very anxious.
However, he did travel the world, he knocked on doors; he was under an awful lot of pressure to act. The result was that in February – I cannot remember now whether it was the 11th or 13th – there was an announcement from the Chief Minister who advised he had consulted with his Cabinet and had arrived at a decision that gas could be made available to Gove. With that certainty and the fact he was prepared to take what is manageable risk, on the strength of that decision there was enormous relief in the region; people made decisions about their lives and their livelihoods. People decided to buy houses, to invest further in their businesses and said, ‘I will not have to look for a job elsewhere. We will be able to stay here,’ and made other decisions.
Although the mining company people may have made decisions, those who are the more mobile part of the community, having chosen to stay in Nhulunbuy, also made financial decisions about their lives: whether they might take a holiday, purchase a property, all of those sorts of things. Rio Tinto, or Pacific Aluminium as it was at that time, also made decisions about its business based on that gas deal having been announced. They invested considerably; they invested millions to undertake studies as to how the engineering would look around converting the steam power station from being heavy fuel fired to gas fired. They invested heavily in preparations around a gas pipeline that would transport gas from Katherine, parallel to the Central Arnhem Road, the nearly 700 km into Nhulunbuy. Everything was proceeding around the EIS for the gas pipeline; consultations were held along the corridor that the gas pipeline would be running through.
A large amount of that work had previously been undertaken when Gas to Gove was looked at a number of years before. The EIS was undertaken, completed and signed off. There were so many things lining up, but we had very bad news on 26 July, a Friday, Darwin Show Day. It was a public holiday in Nhulunbuy, and an announcement came from the Chief Minister to say he was reneging on the Gas to Gove deal. He was not offering 300 PJ of gas, as had been previously committed, but rather there would be 175 PJ of gas and the mining company would need to source the additional fuel required and whether that would be a dual fuel option. There was no real explanation other than he disagreed with the former Chief Minister about risk. Quite contrary to what the Chief Minister had to say, it certainly was not a win-win and was certainly not a better offer. This announcement was the turning point from which everything hinged because that was the day that was the beginning of a spiralling disaster that has taken us to the place we are in today. We condemn the action of the Chief Minister in making that announcement on 26 July.
There is some doubt amongst people who wonder if he made that decision on his own or if it went to a full briefing of Cabinet: whether the Chief Minister had taken certain advice and gone off under his own steam to make that announcement, rather than with the whole Cabinet behind it.
Talking of the risk associated with gas to Gove – I have quoted it previously – the member for Blain broke ranks with his party wing and produced an opinion piece for the NT News on 8 August. This gave some comfort to people in Nhulunbuy. They felt the member for Blain was genuine in his efforts and the fact he went out on a limb to support the view he took. I am aware that people really appreciated that. I will quote some of it:
That statement says an awful lot, and this has certainly been an incredibly divisive issue. I have not had the time to check social media or listen to talkback radio. The issue is being raised again about the ‘us and them’ attitude between Nhulunbuy and the region and the rest of the Northern Territory, who believe the region’s days are over and the place is full of wealthy miners. ‘Too bad, too sad, your days have ended.’ People think this is, essentially, the attitude of the Northern Territory government and the current Chief Minister.
My motion calls upon the Chief Minister to provide us with an update on the floor of this House regarding what steps he has taken to repair the relationship with Rio Tinto and what steps he has taken to lobby for the refinery to stay operational. There has been no announcement of closure. What Rio Tinto has announced is it is not proceeding with its plans to get gas into Gove and is reviewing its future. Unlike the member for Blain, I have not seen or heard any media releases or Facebook postings that reveal he has been on a plane to London to knock on the door of Rio Tinto and talk with Sam Walsh or the board. I have not seen anywhere that he has been on a plane to talk with gas companies. Some of the messages we have received have been a little mixed between the Australian government and the Northern Territory government.
Pre-election, we had a visit from Hon Ian Macfarlane MP, as he is now, having resumed the role of Minister for Industry in the new Coalition government. He came to Nhulunbuy pre-election and was very clear in saying, ‘You vote for the Coalition government, you vote for Tony Abbott and we will save your town; we will look after you.’ He was most emphatic in that regard. He did return to Gove once he was in government, and, as the Minister for Industry, fronted up to a meeting on 30 September.
It was a curious meeting. We were certainly appreciative he had come to Nhulunbuy and met with a fairly large group of people. Sadly, it was not advertised as a public meeting so it was just people who managed to find out it was on or people who had been invited who attended. Minister Macfarlane had the Chief Minister sitting alongside him. They had met at the airport having come from different directions. He told us that on the 10 minute drive into Nhulunbuy, in the back seat of the car, he had given the Chief Minister a briefing and told him he had secured the 300 PJ of gas; that is what he came to announce on 30 September. He said he wanted to deliver that message in person. That was his commitment and he would not let us down.
We found it really strange it would occur like that. Why did the Chief Minister not know about this until he got to Gove and had a briefing on the back seat of the car? Things did not quite gel. We have seen the efforts from others; we are not convinced we have seen the efforts from the Chief Minister in committing to try to resolve this issue. Now that we are in this crisis, what lobbying is he doing to convince Rio Tinto to keep its refinery operational? The reality is the Chief Minister is simply out of his depth. The member for Blain, as Chief Minister, did everything he could in a far more mature and statesmanlike way. These are qualities we do not see in the Chief Minister. It is not just me saying this. There are a number of people who have commented that they believe our current Chief Minister is not quite up to the mark, there is something a bit amateurish about the way he operates and he is a little out of his depth.
Pacific Aluminium was given no notice of the announcement on 26 July or of the media release that followed. I know that to be a fact. If the Chief Minister wants to say otherwise, be it on his head. I know for a fact they did not know that announcement was coming out. What message does that send to people and companies wanting to do business in the Northern Territory when a government and a Chief Minister you believe you have a deal with, you are working with for economic benefits, jobs, all sorts of benefits, makes an announcement and does not tell the company they are making it? It says, ‘We are not open for business’. It says you cannot trust the CLP government. It says, ‘We are amateurs’. To send those messages to the corporate world is frightening. This is how the Chief Minister treats the single largest private employer in the Northern Territory and people in Nhulunbuy – business owners, residents, the workers at the refinery, the mine operations and the traditional owners – and that is appalling.
I was shocked to see a media release from the Chief Minister – I apologise, I do not have it in front of me – a couple of months ago which grew from the fact Pacific Aluminium had decided not to divest that particular asset. It brought them back into the Rio Tinto fold, and Pacific Aluminium no longer exists per se. There had been an internal communication to their workforce at the Gove site from the site manager, Ryan Cavanagh, that said the company was reviewing its options, given the gas deal had been reneged upon, and could not rule out curtailment of refinery operations, but it was one of a number of things it was looking at.
The Chief Minister issued a media release accusing Rio Tinto of scaring its employees. What business is it of the Chief Minister who created this crisis to then make commentary on an internal communication the manager of Rio Tinto at the Gove operation chooses to send to his workforce? I was not alone in finding it extraordinary to accuse the company of scaring its employees when the reality was the only person scaring its employees, and everybody else in the region, was the Chief Minister with his inept handling of this whole affair.
It will take a lot longer to repair the relationship with the people of the region, so many of who are very unforgiving of the Chief Minister’s role in this crisis and the fact his willingness to communicate openly and honestly with people has been lacking. People have really wanted to hear from him firsthand. He has come out on a couple of occasions, and I am delighted he is coming on Friday and a public meeting will be held at Nhulunbuy Town Hall between 10.30 am and 12.30 pm. I understand that will be followed by a meeting with the regional economic development committee. Given the Chief Minister wants me to be part of the solution, I look forward to my invitation to sit in on the regional economic development committee.
Madam SPEAKER: If I could ask you to pause, member for Nhulunbuy. I would like to welcome to the gallery the Indian Cultural Society of the NT visiting Parliament House this evening. To Alex Mohan, president and committee members, welcome. I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms WALKER: I am looking forward to the Chief Minister coming to Nhulunbuy on Friday for what I believe will be the first open public meeting. People in Gove are incredibly worried. They are good, decent, honest and hard-working people and they have a right to hear what the Chief Minister and Rio Tinto have to say. If I have not already said it I will say it now, of course Rio Tinto are in this mix and people are angry with them. I have my moments when I am a little angry about the way they have operated. I am disappointed it is no longer Pacific Aluminium, which was a stand-alone organisation. Pacific Aluminium, as a stand-alone organisation, had different protocols as to how it operated because it was its own company, even under the umbrella of Rio Tinto. It had a Facebook page. It issued media releases. It was easy to communicate with; there were ‘go to’ people within the local community I could pick up a phone and speak to. Those communications are harder under Rio Tinto. It is not as open and communicative as people would like it to be.
We look forward to the meeting on Friday. I accept the reality of the company having to make commercial decisions based on a continued deterioration of market conditions. However, the Chief Minister, in this saga and particularly in the last few days, seems to have had a fairly hands-off type of approach. We look forward to him coming to Nhulunbuy. His hands-off approach reminds me of something the Tourism minister said yesterday morning during Question Time when I reminded him he had done nothing to avert the recent closure of the Qantas travel centre in Nhulunbuy. He replied, ‘That is right. We did nothing. It was a commercial decision. Nothing to do with the government.’ That seems to be the attitude of this saga around gas to Gove. ‘It is nothing to do with us. It is a commercial decision.’ There are many people who see it very differently.
Some of the communication we have had from the Chief Minister was meant to reassure people when it arrived in letter boxes. We do not have post boxes at individual residences in Nhulunbuy. All mail comes to the post office, so on a single day – it actually came in over a couple of days – people were picking up this newsletter. There was an awful lot of them stacked in the rubbish bins outside of the post office, I might add. We have a four-page newsletter that came from the Chief Minister stating he stands firm on gas to Gove. What struck people about this was not so much what he said, but what he did not say. Why was there no mention of the 300 PJ committed to by minister Macfarlane? People were saying, ‘What do you think that means? Remember when he came here on 30 September?’
This is what started ringing alarm bells. To comment on the editorial, who in their right mind releases a column that touts, ‘Business confidence growing in the Territory’ into an incredibly depressed community, one that has been for more than a year? People were disgusted with that. What sort of news is that to give to people in Nhulunbuy, in northeast Arnhem Land where business confidence has plunged in the last 18 months or so? We will treasure that newsletter and will be interested to see if the $13m upgrade to the Gove hospital accident and emergency also progresses, given we have a population that will shrink and there will not be the demand for hospital services there might otherwise have been.
We are pleased he is coming on Friday. I understand the member for Katherine is coming as well. This is good, and so he should because he has avoided the region. He has travelled extensively with his portfolios into Asia. That is good and so he should; if government ministers are not travelling and talking up the Northern Territory and business, they are not doing their jobs.
However, what people bitterly resent is that, in their own back yard – a one-hour flight from Darwin if you are on Qantas, a little longer if you are on Airnorth – there has been a community and a mining company struggling, and not a sign of the member for Katherine. There has not been a sign of him since he came in February ready to take the pats on the back with the then Chief Minister and shake a few hands. We have not seen hide nor hair of him since then and that is incredibly disappointing. Talk up business overseas, attract investors, but do not just drop the largest private employer and a region along with it. That is devastating for people.
We would have liked to have heard the news of the Chief Minister’s visit on Friday earlier. People want to know, and we want him to explain to families, businesses and traditional owners what social and economic impact analysis has occurred and to fully disclose what it shows. I hope this body of work has been done; it should have been done, but there are many people who are not convinced. One of the things that has concerned me has been, over the months, what appears to be an over reliance on the little old East Arnhem Chamber of Commerce.
It is a hard-working chapter of the Chamber of Commerce. It is very active in the business community, lobbying and assisting local businesses, but I believe there has been a reliance on it being asked to conduct a survey of your membership and ask what the impacts are. When it was last asked to do that, I said, ‘Why did you not ask the government to just check the one that had been done previously’? There is also a reliance on the regional economic development committee. It is a key consultative group, a good cross section of people and stakeholders representing the region, but it should not be asked to conduct a survey and a review to come up with the solutions as to where the region might go and what opportunities there may be. It needs to be part of that discussion; they are the people who live there and have access to the best information, as well as many years of knowledge, but everybody is of the view that nothing has gone further than that. I hope the Chief Minister will show us otherwise when he comes to Nhulunbuy on Friday. We have to remember this is not just about the township of Nhulunbuy; it is about the wider region. It is about repercussions that will be felt around the Northern Territory.
We are talking about the potential loss of an annual $500m to the Northern Territory economy. Pacific Aluminium has detailed what its contribution is to the Northern Territory: the $500m in export earnings; the fact that in 2012, Pacific Aluminium, or Rio Tinto, spent $170m on goods and services with 89 local and Territory businesses – that is significant expenditure – the fact it has also delivered $76m in royalties over the previous five years. When I talked earlier about its investment, it was proposing to invest $1.2bn to upgrade existing infrastructure associated with gas conversion. That $1.2bn investment would also have seen the construction of a 600 km pipeline. This had been surveyed, the EIS completed and would have employed hundreds of people. I was briefed about how it would work as they moved along the track, moving camps and the employment opportunities it would bring for Indigenous people and for Territorians.
All of that investment seems to have counted for nothing here. In terms of the social and economic impact analysis, it is critical this very robust body of work is undertaken – not a survey from a Chamber of Commerce – and that it be undertaken by experts to understand what the future holds. This is why the opposition has urged the Chief Minister to appoint highly qualified experts, people who understand industry, demographics and economics. We have suggested qualified experts like Dr Will Sanders from ANU who has previously done work in the Northern Territory, and Professor Ciaran O’Faircheallaigh from Griffith University. Why not engage experts such as these gentlemen to investigate social and economic impacts and develop options for the region’s future? This would assist to inform a structural adjustment package.
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request the member be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to
Ms WALKER: Thank you, member for Barkly and Madam Speaker. People need to be convinced that this body of work has been done. We need to look at what the future options are beyond mining should the refinery options curtail, and we know they intend to continue to export bauxite. We need to look at those future options, but what people want to look at right now is a structural adjustment package. What does it mean for the community that will shrink from a population of 4000 to 1500? What will it mean in terms of what happens to all these people who are losing their jobs amongst the Rio Tinto workforce? I am aware because I have been speaking to people today who are already talking about the potential for redeployment to other Rio Tinto sites, packages where people may choose to depart the company’s employment, relocation, all of those types of factors.
However, what people need to understand is what it will be like in the worst case scenario. What will it be like in three months or six months? People have already been through a period of worrying around this time last year and, in the lead up to Christmas – school has a couple of weeks to go. Christmas and New Year is typically the time of year when families anywhere may choose to pack up and move on. I do not think it is fair to put people through another three-month period of, ‘We are doing a review and we will let you know’.
We are calling on the Chief Minister and the government to release the study. The Chief Minister says there is a plan so we want to see it. We want to see what a structural adjustment package would look like. We want to understand what level of lobbying he is doing with the Australian government and to have something in place and visible for people so we know what we are dealing with by 31 December. That is not unreasonable.
Government has a role to play in this space. We look at the experiences of places like Geelong or Wollongong in recent years, where major industry has withdrawn and the Australian government – or the Victorian or New South Wales governments, depending on which place – have been involved in looking to the future, restructuring. People want to know what will happen since they bought a house, maybe two houses if they are business owners, on the strength of a decision made in February; their business will be lucky to survive. Nobody will want to buy the houses they have bought, let alone their business. These are the things people need to know about.
Towards the last part of my contribution, I want to talk about the impacts on a very human and personal level for some, because they are significant. I especially feel for business owners during this period. It has been heartbreaking, an incredibly tough time, stressful and this downturn has really turned people’s lives on their heads. If they are trying to save money the first thing they do is cut jobs, but to keep their doors open, essentially, business owners are picking up the additional hours themselves. I know our local newsagency has had a heck of a time. The business was burnt out a couple of years ago and they invested considerable money to refurbish the newsagency. And it is much more than a newsagency; they retail all manner of goods. The people who own that newsagency would very much like to retire; it was their plan that they would be in retirement right now but they are not. They are working seven days a week and their retirement is nowhere to be seen, because nobody wants to buy their business now. They continue to work until they see some sign of hope on the horizon, whatever that might be.
Our bakery, Gove Peninsula Bakery, has been operating under a couple who bought it about two years ago. They have had a heck of a time running this bakery, but they provide a brilliant service to our community. What small country town does not have a good bakery with sandwiches, pies, pastries, iced coffee, soft drinks and good coffee? They have worked hard to build this business, and just prior to the 26 July announcement from the Chief Minister, they were given the opportunity by the owners of the building to purchase it and were seriously thinking about it. They decided this was the place for them, the business was doing well, and they were doing the numbers around long-term leases versus purchasing the building, which has additional space that could be leased to others. It sounded like a good prospect. They were thinking about that; however, the announcement came on 26 July and I spoke to the owner of the business a little while after. He just shook his head and said, ‘I am so glad we did not proceed to purchase the building because it would have ruined us’.
What about the operators of the Arnhem Early Learning Centre? It has been in existence since 2008, so we have two childcare centres. We have one that is a community based not-for-profit, and we have the Arnhem Early Learning Centre, which is for profit and an excellent organisation. They have basically had to put off all their cleaning staff and in the evenings it is the owners – two or three families own this business – doing the cleaning for the centre to save money.
I worry about the long-term contractor in town, Manfield Colair, which does all the electrical contracting for Rio Tinto. Col Manfield has invested heavily in Nhulunbuy. He owns a number of houses where he can house his employees. If the refinery operations are curtailed there will be no need for a sizeable electrical contracting workforce; what will he do with the real estate he owns? Here again is a gentleman wanting to retire yet finds himself in this scenario.
What about YBE? It is a company that is a couple of years older than the mining company, formed and owned wholly by the clans of the region, which receives no government grants, never has, and returns dividends to and employs traditional owners. It is a contractor that provides a lot of services to Rio Tinto. During the squeeze that has been on for the last 18 months or so, YBE have had to diversify. YBE has done a great job, under Glenn Aitchison and chairman of its board Dangatanga Gondarra, to diversify its contracting. However, the investment YBE has made into plant and equipment – where does it leave a business owned by the clans of the region?
There are a number of businesses I worry about. I cannot talk about all of them, but I heard John Tourish, proprietor of the Walkabout Lodge on radio yesterday morning. John has invested heavily in the region, is a good businessman, a good local community man, and I daresay John would probably like to be thinking about his retirement as well, but I do not imagine that is on the cards at the moment.
You can buy a house, but you cannot sell one in Nhulunbuy at the moment. I have a friend who announced to me a few weeks ago that he and his wife had purchased a house as a great investment, and he was confident the future was bright; I imagine he would be devastated. I know the young woman who set up and runs East Arnhem Real Estate is incredibly frustrated and feels deeply for the clients she represents in trying to sell houses. Imagine how those people feel, on the strength of confidence in February, who purchased houses. What about traditional owners, where are they in this scenario? They will still have royalties from bauxite production, but the economic opportunities will be reduced dramatically should we see this worst case scenario eventuate.
I know the Gumatj Association and Bunuwal have sought economic opportunities and businesses, and it is great they are standing on their own feet. However, should the refinery operations curtail, that diminishes their opportunities considerably. I know mineral exploration is occurring around the region, and that is great; I hope we find more minerals to be mined. We have a deep water port, we have the infrastructure, and we must look to those future opportunities.
What about the clubs? What about the tennis club that, in the last couple of years, has invested more than $60 000 in upgrading its courts? What about the BMX club that just had its 30th anniversary and has also invested in its club? What about the surf club, which has recently opened a new building, after years of fundraising and government money in there as well? What about the future of government services? What will happen to the hospital, which caters for a region and a large population? If the population shrinks from 4000 to 1500 in the township alone, will we still have a full complement of health services? Where will all the nurses and teachers who are married to Rio Tinto workers go? They will be leaving town. What about other services? What about Qantas and Airnorth? Will we see daily flights continue in and out of Gove? I think not. What about Toll Marine’s barge? Will we see that in weekly? I do not think so.
The Chief Minister has an awful lot to answer for. We condemn him soundly for his actions and look forward to seeing him in Nhulunbuy and hearing what he has to say. Thank you.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, I support my colleague, but I also want to speak about the situation in Gove and Rio Tinto. The latest news coming from Rio Tinto regarding the Gove refinery is not only disappointing, it is also a cause of concern for all Territorians. This decision is multidimensional and has far more implications than have been raised in this House and in the media. The CLP government is saying it was a commercial decision by Rio Tinto. Let us see what constitutes a commercial decision. Rio Tinto, like every other company, has a right to make a profit, and it tries to make a profit. The profit it makes is the difference between the cost of production, the taxes it pays and the income from the sale of its product, in this case, alumina. In the course of production, the following is included: labour, processing, transport and other associated costs.
Rio Tinto has advised that the production costs are high and the product price on the international market has dropped. One of the most important factors in processing is the cost of fuel for the processing of bauxite to alumina, which is a power hungry process. The Northern Territory government does not have much to do with the price of alumina on the world markets or the value of the Australian dollar, but there is something this government could and should have done about the provision of an alternative fuel to Rio Tinto; in its attempt to cut processing costs, the company examined the option to change the fuel for processing from bunker oil to gas.
Let us not forget that a few years ago, Rio Tinto went through a massive reconstruction of its plant in Nhulunbuy, which saw it spending millions of dollars on the town and totally reconfiguring the refinery. It continued to use bunker fuel and was still expensive to run.
Rio Tinto twice came to us when we were in government and gave us some advice – a very clear picture of what the problem was with the refinery in Nhulunbuy. I believe it did the same thing after the election in 2012, when it advised the CLP government of problems with the processing of bauxite to alumina in Nhulunbuy, and the options it had to consider. I am using the term Rio Tinto here, but it was Pacific Aluminium, which was a subsidiary of Rio Tinto. Rio Tinto was the original parent company.
The then Chief Minster, Paul Henderson, provided Rio Tinto with a letter of comfort, in essence, informing the company that gas could be provided to Rio from the Power and Water contract. Following the election, the then Chief Minister, Terry Mills, also provided Rio with a letter this year, offering to supply them with 300 PJ of gas. Unfortunately, following the Japan coup, the current Chief Minister, Adam Giles, unilaterally cancelled that offer, downgrading it to 195 PJ then further downgrading it to a 175 PJ mixture of gas and oil.
Everybody knows the future of Gove or Nhulunbuy is clearly connected to Rio Tinto, the mine and the refinery. Rio has signed another lease for 40-plus years to mine bauxite and will continue to mine bauxite as per its recent announcement. What is in doubt is the refinery.
It is obvious that while Paul Henderson and Terry Mills showed leadership and bypassed the extremely conservative advice of government departments at the time, because they realised what the effects of the decision by Rio Tinto to close the refinery would be – making 1500 people redundant – the current Chief Minister followed departmental advice blindly, which has resulted in the current situation. I am surprised about that because the Chief Minister sometimes shows signs of leadership. However, in this case, he had the wool pulled over his eyes by the department, which we all know is very conservative. It would find any excuse if it did not want something to be done – a clear example of a Yes Minister comedy, but this is not a comedy, this is a tragedy.
Let us look at some of these issues; let us look at the issue of gas. The Chief Minister said, ‘If we give gas to Rio, the Northern Territory will run out of gas, the price of electricity will go up. There will be problems with gas availability,’ and so on. Is this accurate? I recently met with a number of oil and gas companies and was surprised because it was the first time I had heard oil and gas company executives being so vocal about a government decision. Usually, they have been very sensitive and politically correct in their statements. This time, they clearly stated to me the decision by Terry Mills was the right one, but the decision by Adam Giles was the wrong one.
First of all, they said there is enough gas in the Territory to be provided to Rio, and if the current government had chosen to give 300 PJ from the Power and Water contract, there was no problem with a lack of gas for Power and Water in the future, and they described why. They said, first of all, they could have bought some stranded gas fields from offshore, connected them to the network and brought them onshore to provide the extra gas. They also said we can easily utilise and have a formal agreement with the current LNG producers in Darwin or future producers to provide the extra gas.
The companies also said, ‘We can easily utilise and have a formal agreement with the current LNG producers in Darwin, our future energy producers, to provide gas to Nhulunbuy, and in exchange they will provide a volume of gas to the customers of LNG producers in Japan or anywhere in the world’. It happens in other parts of the world; they could not see any reason why this could not happen here. This is the advice we received and it is the correct advice. There was no problem providing gas to Nhulunbuy; there would not be any deficit of gas for Power and Water. In contrast, this would accelerate exploration for oil and gas in the Territory because if companies knew that in 10 years’ time they had to provide a significant amount of gas to Nhulunbuy, they would accelerate spending in onshore exploration in the Northern Territory.
I know very well the Chief Minister is aware of it because I have information that one of his members stated exactly the same when she was in the same meeting with me. I am aware that member was quite strong with her advice to the Chief Minister. The other question I have is about the previous Chief Minister providing a letter of comfort to Rio. I believe that constitutes a contract. I am aware Rio has chosen not to pursue any legal issues with that letter, for its own reasons, but that again leaves the Territory exposed.
Rio operates a mine and a refinery. Any closure will have a severe impact on the town; 1500 people will lose their jobs. That means people will have to find other jobs, there are not many jobs available in Nhulunbuy, so they will have to go somewhere else. What about the people who provide services to the refinery? They have to shed jobs. What about the people using services in the town? The people who provide those services also have to shed jobs. What will the impact of 1500 people moving out of town have on, for example, primary schools, high schools or the hospital? Will the hospital be downgraded? What would be the cost to government? If the hospital was downgraded, every person who has a case in Nhulunbuy would have to be medivaced to Darwin; they would have to be sent to, treated in and hospitalised in Darwin. The impact will be severe. Who will maintain the services in the town? Is Rio willing to provide the same level of services to the town? All it will do is turn around and say to the current government, ‘Well, here is Nhulunbuy, it is now your town, you maintain it’. What will happen to the housing stock? Much of the housing stock is owned by the government. What will happen to that? What will happen to the capital investment of people who chose to buy property, a business or a house in Nhulunbuy? There is a domino effect from a single action of a company resulting from the inaction of the Territory government.
The Chief Minister keeps talking about Indigenous development and I praise him for it. To avoid and overcome the current problems in Indigenous communities, we need to have economic activities in these communities. Nhulunbuy is a community where there are Indigenous interests, Indigenous businesses heavily relying on Rio and its operations. What will happen to these companies? What will happen to the Indigenous people who have been working for these Indigenous enterprises that have been servicing Rio? What will be the training and employment opportunities for Indigenous people now Rio is going to close or mothball the refinery, as the member for Port Darwin stated today on television?
If gas was provided to Rio Tinto, a pipeline had to be built from the central pipeline to Nhulunbuy. That pipeline would provide gas to the refinery but would also be able to provide gas to communities along the route. This would replace very expensive diesel power generation with cheaper provision by gas; it would have more benefits by providing a solution to Rio.
Another problem is the question of sovereign risk in the Territory; when a foreign investor wants to make an investment in a country, one would think they would look at sovereign risk. They want to find out if their investment will be sound and secure, irrespective of the government in power and irrespective of any change of government. Investors accept that governments change, especially in state democracies like Australia. One day, one government of a certain political persuasion is in place, next there is a change. We had a situation where there was no change of government per se; there was not Labor out, Liberal in, there was a Country Liberal Party where the only thing that changed was the leadership. This was the way they managed their own business. However, when the new leader came in, he immediately overturned, unilaterally, a decision made by his predecessor of the same political persuasion in the same government. How can an investor have trust and faith in a Northern Territory government when a change of leader of the same government changed the rules of the game? This is a serious concern for all Territorians.
The Chief Minister presented a statement to this House a couple of days ago about what he did in Asia; that was great, Chief Minister. The problem is that today, Xinhua, the biggest Chinese newsagency, reported a story about Rio and it is considering closing the refinery because the Northern Territory government did not provide gas.
The Australian Mining Review today announced that closing the refinery is expected to cost the Northern Territory government $400m. This news is circulating widely in Australia and the world. Do you think many investors would seriously consider investing in the Northern Territory when they are not sure their investment would be safe and secure? I doubt it very much.
The member for Port Darwin was reported as saying today that Rio is considering mothballing the refinery. They may mothball it, but in saying that he may as well have said, ‘We are closing it down’. This kind of structure, this kind of processing plant is not mothballed because technology changes so quickly there will be not much point in opening again in four or five years’ time because there will be different ways of producing alumina much more cheaply. That refinery will not be mothballed; it will be closed for business.
I know the Chief Minister wants to be remembered as the first Indigenous Chief Minister in Australia. Unfortunately, because of his action or inaction, he will be remembered as the first Territory Chief Minister who destroyed a town in the Northern Territory.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I am waiting for the Chief Minister to respond in some way to this important motion. I hope he does because it is a matter of grave concern to us, the approach he has personally taken as Chief Minister to the issue of the economic viability of the township of Nhulunbuy and the region. This motion is to say, very directly, ‘Take the responsibility of Chief Minister seriously’. The responsibility as the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory is to advocate for the benefit and betterment of Territorians.
In economic and social terms, advocating strongly for the operation of the refinery in Nhulunbuy should have been utmost on the agenda of the Northern Territory Chief Minister. However, while we saw action and activity in this space, every effort undertaken to secure the best possible outcome for the refinery operations in Nhulunbuy from the member for Blain when he was Chief Minister, we have seen a very stark contrast of inaction from the member for Braitling. That has been a matter of great concern and sadness to us because, ultimately, we realised the consequences of inaction from the member for Braitling were so dire to so many Territorians living in Nhulunbuy in the northeast Arnhem region. Actions such as leaving no stone unturned – when you compare and contrast; I am not standing here as the number one fan of the member for Blain, but I will always acknowledge effort where I see effort with good intention. The efforts – with good intention – undertaken by the then Country Liberal Party Chief Minister, the member for Blain, through the first what I call ‘phase’, of the Nhulunbuy crisis post-October last year, when Pacific Aluminium announced a review into its operations, were consistent: task force formed, visiting the region, visiting the township, engaging with businesses, engaging with the industry, engaging with and understanding the oil and gas producers, explorers and the potential.
It was a difficult several months because I believed the time lines going into the following year of 2013 were causing grave concern to the residents of Nhulunbuy. I had hoped they would understand the opportunity a gas to Gove deal presented in doubling the domestic gas market in the Northern Territory and the opportunity that presented major exploration companies such as Santos and ENI.
It took a while for the then CLP government to get to. Some of the earlier rhetoric was somewhat misleading and alarmist about why we needed to secure our future energy, despite the fact we had gas through to 2032 and they were looking at a reduction of a few years. Major explorers Santos and ENI were saying, ‘We have the capacity and potential and if you sign this, we will go hard,’ because gas is not produced unless there is a market to sell it to, as the costs are so high.
We saw no stone left unturned by the then Chief Minister, the member for Blain and ultimately, a press release saying, ‘Deal is done’; we saw that too and, in good faith, believed it. In good faith, the residents of Nhulunbuy believed it; in good faith, the residents of the region believed it. Business people went ahead and made decisions based on that. I have met business people in Nhulunbuy who made decisions to buy an additional house because they were bringing in additional staff and needed to house them. These are not insignificant decisions; these are decisions that run to millions of dollars following that announcement in early 2013. The traditional owners, in good faith, continued negotiations with Pacific Aluminium, ultimately back to Rio Tinto, about the gas pipeline and the route. These were not insignificant bodies of work, done by the traditional owners along the route, by the Northern Land Council and the company itself, running to tens of millions of dollars in expenditure as well.
I met with traditional owners along the route. They were actively and genuinely engaged in this entire process and starting to discuss among themselves the regional economic development opportunities of a gas pipeline. I had an understanding of what that meant in practical terms, having seen the opportunities, training and jobs from the construction of the pipeline to link Wadeye to Darwin for Blacktip gas to come to market for Power and Water. There were significant opportunities as well as, obviously, royalty payments for the traditional owners.
This was all done in good faith. The town geared back up, not rapidly, but confidence was definitely restored, businesses were making business decisions with confidence renewed in the future of the refinery.
The announcement by the now Chief Minister, the member for Braitling, on a Friday public holiday – Darwin Show Day – when the residents of Nhulunbuy were enjoying a Northern Territory public holiday without a show – we all know what many residents in Nhulunbuy do; they go fishing, so they were not necessarily near their radios. That announcement on show day signalled a very loud alarm bell for me. We have heard the member for Casuarina talk about what it does to sovereign risk to renege on a deal with a multinational and revise it arbitrarily. To announce it on a public holiday showed a level of dismissal, a level of failing to understand the gravity of the situation and showed a level of political contempt I had not seen before. I had seen some things I felt appalled about in those months of the CLP government, but not quite to that extent, and to then see the responsible Chief Minister not go to Nhulunbuy, and not have the meetings that ought to have been held was incredibly disturbing. I have often thought of what the first leaders of other jurisdictions, such as Premiers and Chief Ministers, do when there is a grave industrial concern affecting hundreds, if not thousands of jobs. They dig into the trenches and fight for the people, the jobs and the industry; you see it in Geelong and South Australia with car manufacturing, and it in Tasmania with the forestry industry. They do everything it takes and leave no stone unturned to fight for the industry, jobs and the wellbeing of the people of the region.
That has not been the behaviour of this Chief Minister; he has been arrogant, dismissive, looking to blame anyone else and has not accepted responsibility for his part. It is not solely his part; we understand that. We understand Rio Tinto has made a commercial decision; we have been watching the alumina price. However, what we do not understand, Chief Minister, is the way you have been so arrogantly dismissive of the township’s situation and the issues that will be created for the region in the event of a closure and mothballing of the refinery which your colleague, the member for Port Darwin, precipitously announced to the media today. How incredibly extraordinary!
It has been your actions, Chief Minister, that have shown us you are simply not up to this job; you have not behaved as a leader. You have been off on your own flights of fancy, wherever you have wanted to go to do the good news stories, rather than the hard, heavy lifting to represent the interests of thousands of Territorians. We are not exaggerating when we say thousands; there are about 1500 jobs directly at stake and there are thousands more at stake indirectly. It is about a $500m contribution to the Territory economy. There are businesses in Nhulunbuy directly affected – small businesses, medium-sized businesses – by any closure of the refinery, as are the transport and freight businesses. Have you had a conversation with Airnorth about its business? There are businesses in Winnellie and Berrimah which downstream and supply to the businesses in Nhulunbuy and the region. The magnitude of the reverberating effects of this is enormous.
From the outset, Labor has been consistently calling for the Chief Minister to provide an economic and social impact analysis on the potential closure of the refinery. Here we are, six months down the track from that July announcement, with no analysis; if there is one, it is still hidden. We hear vague mutterings of a plan B, but no detail. Surely, Territorians have the right to be fully informed of the effects of decisions such as these. Surely, they have the right to expect their government to have been employing experts in the field to understand the economic and social impacts. If you have done the work, release the information. However, we have only vague mutterings of plan B.
Chief Minister, when you are in Nhulunbuy on Friday – we are glad you are going, it is the very least you could do – at the public meeting at the town hall, provide them with copies of the economic and social impact analysis because it is their livelihoods you are talking about. It is the families of Nhulunbuy and the region whose livelihoods are being affected; they need to know because they will be making decisions in their lives about how to deal with it. At the very least, you need to inform them of what you know. We have gone out with the news there will not be a conversion to gas and stated that work should commence immediately on what a structural adjustment package would look like, if required.
We have not gone down the path the member for Port Darwin chose today to announce mothballing, but we are saying you must have these contingencies in place if required. The structural adjustment package is the purview primarily of the Commonwealth government; you should be lobbying heavily to make sure resources are applied by the Commonwealth for a thorough and rigorous structural adjustment package. My colleague, the member for Nhulunbuy, today had more constructive suggestions that are flippantly ignored by this government, suggesting two experts in the field to undertake the work of a structural adjustment package. They know the region, they have the qualifications to do the work. Given the amount of mistrust the community has in you, Chief Minister, they may trust independent experts to do the work. People do not trust your word.
You went there with the federal resources minister, Ian Macfarlane, in September when the town was told, ‘It is all good, we have 300 PJ of gas secured, we have saved the town’. It is not at all good; Rio has made a decision not to convert to gas and there is a huge question mark hanging over the refinery. The member for Port Darwin has decided to announce mothballing. What do you know? Respond to us in this Chamber tonight and say whether you have been advised about that or were just making it up on the spot?
At the very least, ensure you go lobby for a structural adjustment package and for the work to be done by independent experts, not some handpicked mates who will do a half-baked job for the right price and not in the interests of the residents of Nhulunbuy or the region. Independent experts are required here. The rigorous structural adjustment package analysis needs to be done by about 31 December at the latest or in the event it is needed. Get on and do the job, but by all means can you stop saying you will dovetail behind Rio and follow Rio? You are the Chief Minister, step up and show some leadership; you should be out in front leading the interests of Territory residents living in Nhulunbuy and living in the region. Step up; you have mishandled this from the start. Seek some sound advice on this now and show some real action for the residents whose livelihoods are in crisis.
I commend this motion, member for Nhulunbuy, and I commend the work you have been doing to speak on behalf of your residents. You have had to take direct personal abuse from this Chief Minister because you are advocating on behalf of your constituents. He has failed to grasp that what you say in here is what residents are saying to you: that you are speaking on behalf of the people who have elected you. I have been there with you in the town, on behalf of people who have previously voted CLP. You failed to grasp that, Chief Minister; start listening to the member for Nhulunbuy, as she knows the people of Nhulunbuy incredibly well. She is highly regarded and respected there. She works across all sectors and is tapped in and in tune. Show some measure of being constructive, albeit at such a late stage.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, as much as I do like talking about the situation in Gove and trying to find a response, it is very hard listening to the tone of the Leader of the Opposition. I will not talk for long on this matter; I will provide a couple of corrections. Number one, there was never a gas deal done for Gove; the member for Nhulunbuy is well aware of that. There was a communication put to Rio and it was never accepted, full stop. The same as the gas offer that has been put to Rio in the past. All the gas requirements Rio was seeking have been fulfilled and it has, once again, not accepted the gas options that have been offered. In the past, the mine, in its various formations of other ownerships, has been offered gas, whether it is coming from PNG or from Wadeye with ENI; those offers have not been taken up, the same as the offer for coal in the past was not taken up. We know that; we know there will be decisions made by Rio in the coming days. We are not sure exactly when but I anticipate either by tomorrow or Friday. We will wait and see what that decision is, whether it continues operation or whether it moves towards mothballing, curtailment or otherwise. I ask that the board from Rio travels to Gove to make the decision and informs its employees and the community which it so much relies upon.
This debate was not about Rio, Gove, the residents of Gove or the business people. This was about politics and playing games; that is all it was. I said in Question Time today, ‘If the member for Nhulunbuy is that interested, become part of the solution’. I did say if you want information, call me; I am happy to give you a briefing. I am happy to help you along the way and let you know exactly what is happening. You have not done that. In fact, you and the Leader of the Opposition were offered a briefing by Rio Tinto this afternoon – which you cancelled, saying you did not have time to meet until after Question Time tomorrow – where they were going to tell you of any proposed curtailment plans they have.
You talk about the residents of Nhulunbuy. Rio Tinto, this afternoon, was going to tell you exactly what its plans are, and you and the Leader of the Opposition refused to turn up. That is what it is all about. If you seriously cared you would go and find out what is going on. You did not even care, and you cannot have the briefing before Question Time because it would not allow you to play games at Question Time, and you would actually know what is going on.
You show this feigned indignation that you do not know what is going on. You could have gone to this briefing this afternoon and found out exactly what is happening. However, instead of representing the people of Nhulunbuy, you again play silly games and do not want to be part of the solution to drive change and help the people of Nhulunbuy. There was a perfect opportunity for you to have an understanding of how many houses would be empty after any potential structural change, how many jobs could potentially be lost. What would it mean for small business? What would it mean for the number of students in the schools? You could have had all of this here this afternoon and you would not even take up the opportunity.
I find it disgraceful that you came here with this motion to play the silly games you have been talking about here. You try talking about gas when Rio said gas is not the solution they want to go towards. Rio knows all the gas is there for it if it wants to use it; the company knows that, but it has made a decision on commercial grounds not to take it. We will now wait and see if it wants to continue with the refinery. As I have said many times, we are hoping for the best and planning for the worst. We have our processes in place for what we will do to get behind Rio when it puts together its package of response and support for the residents of Gove and the broader region. All of those things wold have been laid on the table for the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Nhulunbuy. You could not even be bothered turning up to a briefing and you then decided to politicise it all by saying, ‘We are not able to meet before Question Time. We have to do it after Question Time so we can play games in Question Time in parliament.’ It shows your respect for the people of Nhulunbuy.
I have read through this motion. The third part talks about going to Gove. I do what I want to do, but I will go to Gove on Friday, so that meets what is happening in section three. Point number two is about the Chief Minister updating the Assembly on what actions the Territory has taken to repair its relationship with Rio. We continue to meet with Rio; we have been meeting with them all day today and all day yesterday. We meet them on a regular basis, trying to resolve some of these plans. If the member for Nhulunbuy and the Leader of the Opposition wanted to know what was going on, they would have had that meeting this afternoon. They instead chose to play games.
The other part was about condemning the action. You work out what happened, but I will tell you there was never a deal done with the former Chief Minister and Rio Tinto. You should go back to Nhulunbuy and tell the residents you could not be bothered turning up to a meeting with Rio to find out what is happening for the constituents there.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Chief Minister has just shown his true colours. I could not bear to listen to the sheer arrogance, the schoolboy style of his delivery. He cannot escape that; it is the way he is, it is at his core and it is his nature. It is hard to see him ever displaying an attitude which does not speak of arrogance and his complete inability to work in a statesmanlike way.
The Chief Minister sat at the Cabinet table; it was a Cabinet decision. The member for Blain, as Chief Minister, before he was knifed in the back a month later by the member for Braitling – a man driven by blind ambition and arrogance – was around for that Cabinet deal. There was a media release on 13 February, ‘Done Deal to Secure the Future of Gove’. The member for Port Darwin was part of that Cabinet; the member for Araluen and the Mines and Energy minister, the member for Katherine, were also part of that, and when that announcement came out – I do not have Hansard with me – I know the member for Araluen said what a momentous occasion it was that Chief Minister Mills had done this. They had saved Gove and it was fantastic.
It does not gel that the Chief Minister now steps away from that; he stepped away from it on 26 July, and said, ‘There was no deal done. It was way too risky; we were too scared to take that risk. I had different advice and, essentially, we were happy to abandon Gove and leave people to their own devices.’
For the Chief Minister to come swaggering in here and accuse this side of playing politics – his contribution was pathetic. People who know me in my electorate know how hard I have worked and lobbied for them, and what an incredibly difficult period of time it has been in the last 18 months or so. It distresses me enormously that I am locked in this place and not at home in my electorate. I will do anything to get information and learn what is going on. Let us be very clear, I received a call this afternoon from the person in Rio Tinto who I am able to contact periodically. They were checking my availability for a meeting this afternoon or this evening, with the Leader of the Opposition. Given we have GBD, given I have been here on other business, I said, ‘I will get back to you. I am involved in a couple of motions, but I will be free at 9 pm, would that suit?’ She said it was a little too late, and I said, ‘I will get back to you. I just need to check with my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition.’ I checked my calendar.
The Chief Minister obviously knows what is going on. I have a couple of media interviews to do tomorrow morning, I have a Caucus meeting – as we do prior to Question Time – so the most obvious time was at 11 am tomorrow. What is wrong with that? At 11 am tomorrow, the Leader of the Opposition and I will be meeting with two representatives from Rio Tinto who contacted me this afternoon and offered a briefing. Tomorrow at 11 am is the time we have agreed to. I did not knock back any briefing this afternoon.
The Chief Minister is sinking to the lower depths of the pond in trying to score some really cheap and pathetic political points. I will have my briefing tomorrow morning.
We had a briefing by telephone from two women from Rio Tinto the day before yesterday. Last week, I contacted Rio Tinto locally in Gove. I have been in touch with Ian Macfarlane, the federal minister; I wrote to him. I knew something must have been going on when I got a response from him in record time of less than a week. It came through to my e-mail the day before yesterday. I will seek out these opportunities. The Chief Minister is a rather pathetic individual. For him to say there was never a deal when he sat around the Cabinet table; he is being incredibly dishonest. Some of the colleagues on his side must be feeling a little uncomfortable, particularly those who were around the Cabinet table and know this has proceeded.
The Chief Minister’s way of dealing with this is to deflect and launch personal attacks on me. The latest strategy from the brains trust of the CLP seems to be, ‘How do we deal with the opposition?’ Some bright spark put up a hand and says, ‘Oh, I know, let us tell them they have to find the solutions’. Well, good on you; you are again deflecting your responsibility. You can throw that line at us, ‘You come up with a solution’. The reality is you are the government; you have the resources, the capacity and the solutions. It is your duty to find the solutions, and it is the duty of the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, the leader of the government of the Northern Territory, to represent all Northern Territorians, regardless of where they live. They should stick up for and fight for them, irrespective of whether their elected representative is a CLP or ALP member.
Many months ago, when we had the member for Blain as Chief Minister, I had people asking me during this difficult period – this was before Christmas last year – ‘Do you think it is because this seat is not CLP?’ I remember addressing this in my weekly column in the local newspaper where I said this was not about politics, it was above politics. The government, even though it is a CLP government, has a responsibility to all Territorians; I genuinely believed that. I was able to talk with Terry Mills from time to time and was very happy with the outcome that came in February.
The place I am in right now? Someone raised it with me the other day; it was a journalist, and people back home have also asked whether I think things might be different if the seat of Nhulunbuy was held by a CLP member. I think it would make a difference. They are so churlish, so obsessed with doing deals with mates in other areas, dodgy to the core, that because the seat is held by Labor and not the CLP, the care factor is not there. I believe that and it is a disappointing position to be in.
As far as people in Nhulunbuy are concerned, I know people who have voted CLP their entire lives who are so angry at the treatment they have received at the hands of the Chief Minister. They are not entirely happy with his federal counterpart, who rolled into town and said, ‘Everything will be fine, you vote for us’. It is now, ‘Sorry, they have made a decision and the ball is in their court’. People are feeling abandoned. People are angry with the CLP government. I found the contribution to this debate from the Chief Minister entirely unsatisfactory and puerile, and it smacked of arrogance.
Mr Deputy Speaker, we stand by this motion. We condemn the Chief Minister for his actions, or lack of action, in standing up for gas to Gove, and standing up for the people of Nhulunbuy.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 9 Noes 13
MOTION
Independent Local Government Boundary Commission
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Northern Territory government sets up an independent local government boundary commission to inquire into:
how many local government areas there should be
what the external boundaries should be
what the internal boundaries for wards should be
unincorporated areas
the development of a formula which clearly spells out the ownership of assets and liabilities if there are boundary changes
what effect boundary changes will have on the sustainability and viability of any existing and proposed new councils, taking into account the recommendations of the Deloitte Inquiry into Local Government
And that as part of the investigation, the commission will be required to make sure:
all residents of the shire councils are informed of the inquiry
all residents have the opportunity to have their say about the future of their council
The board should have between five and seven members made up of:
a representative of the Northern Territory Electoral Commission
a financial expert on local government in the Northern Territory
up to three persons who have a long-standing knowledge and involvement in local government
the Chair of the Local Government Grants Committee
a representative from the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory.
There could not be a more opportune time to talk about this, in light of the completely opposite version of doing things right we have seen today, with the launch of the government’s new Local Government Amendment (Restructuring) Bill. I realise we are not allowed to go into the details of this bill; in other words, we cannot pre-empt debate. However, we can talk about, in general, what is in the bill and the difference between what I am trying to put forward. The bill gives the minister enormous powers to more or less do anything with local government. The ability for government to make changes – I think it is clause 9 – is presently included under the act, but this goes much wider than that.
What I am putting forward today is a proposal to do things the right way. The government is putting forward something which is done on the cheap; it is what I call a slap in the face to good governance, and it is a slap in the face to local government because local government is a tier of government. It is a legitimate form of government; it is formed by the election of councillors or aldermen by the people of that local government area; its being is from the people. It might be an instrument under an act of the Territory government, as the Legislative Assembly is, to some extent, an instrument of the Commonwealth through the Self-Government Act. We are still elected by the people of the Northern Territory, in the same way local government people are elected by the people of their shire. I am sure if the Commonwealth government decided the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory should be removed and replaced with someone they wanted, we would kick up a bit of a stink, or if any members were told they did not have a job because the Prime Minister said, ‘Under our act, I can replace one of you with anyone I like’ – that is what will happen if you pass this bill.
What I am putting forward is a proposal which will say, ‘Let us have boundary changes, let us look at the viability of councils and do it in a respectful way to the voters and residents of the councils’. Once again, we seem to forget they are the people we are supposed to be representing. We are making decisions on high or listening to a few people with big voices and not listening to the people we should be listening to.
I have said before and I say again, I have always felt the shires were too big. However, I am not such a fool to say, ‘Let us just change the boundaries because I said the councils were too big’. You have to look at it seriously. Of course you have to look at the viability and sustainability of local government. We already know from the Deloitte inquiry that councils in the Northern Territory are propped up by the Territory and federal governments. All councils receive money from the federal government. The difference with some of our shires is they have to receive money from the NT government because they are simply not able to raise sufficient funds through rates and other means, such as through taking on jobs like looking after Centrelink and getting paid for it. They are simply not able to recover enough funds to be financially viable. As long as they are propped up with money from the NT and federal governments, they can continue, but it is very shaky. Deloitte says there has to be some major changes if you want to make councils viable.
You would think before we look at boundary changes we would look at the viability of what we have. The minister is alluding to taking Maningrida out of West Arnhem Shire. Maningrida has a lot of Housing Commission houses. That shire gets a small amount of money from rates, probably 4% or 5%; I do not have the documents in front of me, but it is quite small. Most of that money would come from NT Housing, which has leases and pays council rates. Maningrida would probably be the second biggest community in West Arnhem Shire – Jabiru, maybe Maningrida. If I am wrong let me know, but I believe that is the biggest town and if you remove it, you might find you have reduced your rates from 4% to 2%. It might be okay for Maningrida; it will only have a small area to look after then, but what happens to the rest of West Arnhem Shire? If it is already struggling to make money and you take a chunk out of it – it still has to look after the roads. The rest of the shire is pretty big, so if 1% of the shire is cut out for a new shire and the rest is West Arnhem Shire, how will that work? Is that unfair to the rest of the people who live in West Arnhem Shire?
If you take Peppimenarti, Nauiyu, Palumpa and Wadeye out of Vic Daly, which might make sense – I am not saying it does not – and it means both councils are stone motherless broke and cannot afford to do the roads, pick up the rubbish, pay their employees and cover the cost of administration, what is the point? We have to keep our feet on the ground. We have members saying, ‘This is what people want,’ that is fine, but we are supposed to be leaders, not just followers.
We can say, ‘Yes, we hear what you are saying. We understand you might want a boundary change, but we need to look at it properly and investigate what that will mean.’ We can come back to the people and say, ‘There is simply not enough money at the moment to do that’ or, ‘If we change the boundary in this way, we might be able to make it more feasible; we might be able to add a bit or take a bit off.’ There is a need for proper discussions about this. The way to get these discussions is to go through an independent boundary commission. Take out the party politics, because the bill coming before the House reeks of party politics. Members of the CLP have said, ‘These people want this. Okay, we need to give it to them, we promised it.’ That is fine, but what happened to the discussion about viability of the councils? You make this great promise and if we end up with councils that are worse off – you must remember the Chief Minister called the existing councils toxic. If we cut them up, make them smaller and less viable, will we call them radioactive? That is where we are going if we are not careful.
We need to be very careful what we are doing and not to promise people something where, in the future, they will be worse off. Set up an independent commission to look at the whole of the Territory. Once again, you need to look at the bigger picture. If you cut the Vic Daly Shire into two, what happens to the part left over? Will it be viable, or should I take a piece of the Central Desert Shire that sits up there? Does it have an effect on the next shire? Do we need to adjust the Roper Shire because Maningrida has come out of that? What I am saying is be careful, go down the path of taking this sensibly. If you end up with councils that are broke, that will be a shame.
I am mirroring this independent commission on the one that went into Queensland, and there are many local government areas in Queensland that are under Aboriginal local government. It decided to look at a range of things. It was set up by the government at the time, and was not the most popular thing to do. If anyone remembers, at the time amalgamations were happening in the Northern Territory, amalgamations were happening in Queensland. The amalgamations were big for Queensland, but they were nowhere near as big as the amalgamations in the Northern Territory. The Barkly Shire is one-and-a-half times bigger than Tasmania. The Central Desert Shire is 1000 km, from Lajamanu to Tobermorey Station. What kind of shire is that? That is a big shire.
Queensland might have complained, but it did not know what it was complaining about if it was trying to compare it with us. The Queensland government put out an independent body which had to look at a range of things. You will see that I put a number of people into my motion who are not political, in that sense. They are not Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal; we do not say any of that. What we are doing is setting up a group of people whose job is simply to look at the cold, hard facts about local government in the Northern Territory.
I will describe the background of the people Queensland appointed to this body. They were people who had lots of experience in local government. For instance, this was the commission in Queensland: Bob Longland, who was Electoral Commissioner for Queensland and had 13 years’ experience in the Australian Electoral Commission, was the commission chairperson; Sir Leo Hielscher , who was the Chair of the Queensland Treasury Cooperation, a financial person who was involved when looking at viability and sustainability; Hon Terry Mackenroth, who was a former Deputy Premier and Treasurer in the Queensland parliament; Hon Di McCauley, who was a former – we are not talking about people who are currently in it – member of the Queensland parliament from 1986 to 1988 and former Minister for Local Government and Planning; Tom Pyne, who was the former well-known President of the Local Government Association of Queensland and former Mayor of Cairns and Mulgrave Shires and served 39 years in local government; Hon Bob Quinn, who was the former leader of the Queensland Liberal Party and member of the parliamentary Committee for Electoral and Administrative Reviews, who participated in a review of the external boundaries and local authorities; and Kevin Yearbury who was a former Electoral Commissioner and Director-General of the Department of Local Government and Planning. They had people with expertise outside of government departments and the political people, because they wanted to ensure local government was looked at independently. They got the experts in.
We are not getting the experts in; we have the minister saying, ‘They told us we have to change it. They want to change the boundary, under this section in here.’ Done! Do not worry about the viability of the council, or whether the rest of the Victoria Daly Shire goes broke. Do not worry about how you split up the assets. Who will get the graders? Which one are you going to fight over? If they all belong to Victoria Daly at the moment, will you have the right to take them off it?
We know what is happening in Central Australia. There is a small local government that existed prior to the amalgamation of the shires that is still fighting in the courts, saying its equipment was its equipment and not the equipment of MacDonnell Shire. There are some issues. Who paid for the equipment? Which ratepayers paid for equipment?
On the basis of doing things properly, you need to get the right people in there. What was the methodology? To give you a further idea of what this commission did, it said:
I am sure we are not going down that path. That sounds too intelligent.
That is what I am putting forward, that we look at things in a proper manner, not just a two or three page bill. I talk of people having a say in what happens. This was the process Queensland had in its commission. There is nothing, I believe, in our legislation that states this:
The commission thanked all those individuals. You can see the commission was not just about making a decision because a few people thought it was a good or bad idea. They asked for people to submit their concerns or their views on the amalgamations.
The report I am reading from mentions boundaries:
We are making two out of one. The same principles apply.
What they are saying is if you are going to do something, try to keep the community interest there. In some cases you will have a community interest. The other side of that community interest will be another section which is covered in the report, and that is the financial sustainability of those councils.
You look at the boundaries, but you also look at the minimum level of financial sustainability for councils, as the commission did for local government in Queensland:
That is a key thing we should be looking at. If the government’s intention is to make smaller councils, can the minister say, ‘This will give improved sustainability’? If so, show us the figures, show us the methodology. Do not just tell me, because we have Deloitte to tell us things are not right. Let us see what you are doing to fix local government sustainability.
You have the cart before the horse. You should be fixing the sustainability issue and then looking at the boundaries. You can do them at the same time if you want to save a bit of time; talk to people about the two things and you can then make up your mind as to whether this will make any sense. However, if you are just going to go with it because people said it is a good idea, that shows a level of immaturity when it comes to really serious decisions this parliament has to make.
As I said, you complained about the local governments being toxic. You said they were not working, that was the complaint. I hope they work. There are many good people in local government who are trying, but we have major issues with revenue. You have put in a process for people to have more consultation through local authorities, and this will provide them more opportunity than they currently have through their local boards, though I have issues about being viable and at the same time trying to find $1m or more to run those local authorities. Let us give that a try, because your promise was to give people more of a say. It was not necessarily about boundary changes, it was to give more of a say. This is the second phase of what was promised by the then minister, Alison Anderson; that there would be a second phase of consultation on viability, followed by boundary changes.
That promise seems to have gone out the door. I do not know where it has gone. You got rid of the minister; did you get rid of the promise? Do the two things go together or does one not stay as part of the government? If you check Ms Anderson’s media release at the time, you will see she promised there would be a second round of consultation to do with viability and boundaries. That seems to have disappeared, and that is pretty sad.
Minister, I know you think I waffle on. I do not put these things forward just for the sake of filling in time, as you might think. I think you are going down the wrong path. I have worked in local council in Aboriginal communities for a fairly long time. Do not – pardon me, I nearly said ‘bullshit’. Do not say that to people; deal with them fairly and squarely and do not make false promises to people that you cannot keep.
If you say you want to help them, provide them all the information truthfully, tell them about problems with the viability of those councils. It is no good you setting up one council you think will be super-duper viable and stuffing up the other council so the people of Kalkarindji, Yarralin, Timber Creek or Pine Creek have a council that is well and truly stuffed because you have said, ‘Oh, we have made this promise to Peppimenarti, Wadeye, Nauiyu and Palumpa and they are doing fine’. What is the effect on the other council? If you want to do it properly, take the people with you. Tell them the whole story, not the high falutin sweet story, the smooth spin talk; that is what you do not do. You sit down with people quietly and say, ‘These are the issues if we change the boundaries’.
Have you been to Maningrida and sat down with more than just a few people for a community consultation? Have you sat down in a group and discussed the issues of them taking over as a separate shire or town council? Have you said to them, ‘Well, if we remove this, that will affect West Arnhem Shire’? Have you done the sums? This should be done as a total picture. Your changes at Maningrida, for all I know, might affect west MacDonnell Shire. I have no idea, because you might have to adjust other shires to make them more viable.
Why do you not go down the path of setting up something sensible that is independent, that you could keep your hands off for the time being, let this group go out for six months and show us you have done a professional job in trying to – make promises to people but do not go down the path of making them a promise like blind Freddy. ‘We have made a promise. We do not care if the whole thing falls apart as long as we have stuck with our promise.’ That would be stupid. I want you to go down the path of looking at local government in a proper, professional manner. If it means you have to tell the people of Maningrida this will not work, so be it. If you tell people the reasons why, I think they will trust you; people are not stupid.
You are taking control of what should be an independent process. You will be the person who makes those decisions. As I said, I cannot discuss those; we will discuss them next week because I cannot pre-empt or debate that matter, but there are things in the bill which are very concerning. There is much more than what is in the Local Government Act at present.
Minister, I put this motion forward; I know you will not support it, and it disappoints me that I could have raised it before you put this bill forward. No one says, ‘You have some experience in local government. What do you think of this method?’ I am not the enemy of the CLP. I might give you a kick in the backside every now and then, but I would rather talk to you if it means I help the people of the Northern Territory. I am not worried about helping you mob, you can help yourselves. I know I am not in government, but I am still a member of parliament and I say this is the wrong way.
I lived at Daly River for a long time. That is where I was married and I know a few people there. You need to take a cold shower with this bill; put it on hold or in the bin. I recommend, minister, you do what any good government would do; look for change, but do it in a process which brings the people along. Do it in a way that is professional and independent and you will achieve a better result. This method will cause a lot of antagonism in our community, and I cannot believe local government people will accept that, theoretically, under your proposal, you can get rid of a mayor and replace them with someone you want; that is the way it is written. That is not the way we should be running government; we should be a partnership and that is not a partnership. We should make a partnership through this local government boundary commission. It is not aggressive, it is not picking sides; it is just doing it the right way. If you do it the right way, you will achieve a better outcome for everybody, including the government.
Mr TOLLNER (Local Government and Regions): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for introducing this motion. The government will not be supporting your motion. We cannot support it; it is far too prescriptive. I am about to offer a compromise, but we cannot support this motion. I suggest it is probably expensive too; I have a favourite saying, ‘You cannot pull your socks up when you have none on’. Unfortunately, we are staring down the barrel of $5.5bn of Labor debt, so to set up what seems to be a reasonably expensive commission is not an option.
I know it is hard for some people in this place to accept, but we were given a strong mandate at the last election to reform local government and return a voice to local communities. We are doing everything we can to deliver on that election commitment. The member for Nelson calls for the introduction of a boundary commission similar to that run in Queensland during its shire council restructuring. During the Queensland shire restructuring process, the boundary commission examined proposals and the level of community support from regions with a strong interest in returning its own local government council. In short, we do not need to set up a separate boundary commission in the Northern Territory. We have a very competent Department of Local Government and Regions. The people in that department have a deep understanding of what happens in the Northern Territory, the community consultation that need to be held, the assessments that need to be made and the need to carefully plan and implement a transition process. Setting up a boundaries commission, apart from being very prescriptive, would simply duplicate a lot of work that is already under way in the department.
As with the Queensland shire council restructuring, a detailed transition process has been planned; I will be announcing the members of a transition committee over the next couple of weeks. The transition committee members will comprise a broad cross-section of stakeholders, including current council representatives from the Victoria and Daly regions, LGANT, the Australian government and the Northern Territory government. They will be assisted by expert consultants who will collectively oversee the transition to two fully functioning new councils for the Victoria and Daly regions. The transition process – if the legislation is passed – will not be rushed and will progress over the six-month period, enabling new councils to commence operations from 1 July 2014.
In relation to some of the issues raised by the member for Nelson, such as the formula for the transfer of assets and liabilities, the department’s planning already includes the transition committee consideration of applying the same restructuring methodology adopted in Queensland which was prepared by the equivalent department in Queensland.
In relation to sustainability and viability of councils, I know it is a problem; it was a problem under the previous model. It continues to be a problem at the department and it is receiving independent expert assistance on the sustainability and viability of councils from Charles Darwin University, Deloitte, which has already been mentioned, and the Australian Centre for Excellence for Local Government.
In relation to ensuring all residents are informed – this has been stated a number of times in this place – the department has already conducted significant community consultation about local government reforms, including 279 meetings in communities during the initial consultation and 87 meetings in communities during the boundary consultation. These will continue in the relevant areas affected.
In relation to including the Electoral Commission, member for Nelson, the department has already arranged for weekly updates with the Electoral Commissioner to ensure close involvement in the process. My recent announcement about the new council for the Daly region follows a well-attended meeting with representatives of clan groups from the regions at Peppimenarti. They made it absolutely and abundantly clear to me, the Chief Minister and the member for Daly, in person, that they wanted a stronger voice and greater control over the delivery of services within the Daly region. That is exactly what we intend to deliver. We said we will listen to people and, where it is appropriate, we will act.
In summary, establishing a boundaries commission in the Northern Territory the way it has been described by the member for Nelson would add an unnecessary, expensive and time consuming process to the work already being undertaken by the department and the work currently planned for the transition committee.
I have heard the calls from the opposition and the member for Nelson saying there is too much power vested in one minister in this area. Obviously, I do not think that is the case; however, that perception, whether valid or invalid, is something I would like to address. In that regard, while I say we will not support this motion, I am very happy to sit down with the members for Nelson and Nhulunbuy, who is the shadow minister on Local Government, in the near future. It might be difficult late this week, but certainly next week, during sittings, we can have a discussion about how you may be able to provide some oversight, to at least put your minds at ease. This is so you can see the minister is not abusing these temporary powers and how, if there are concerns or strong feelings about viability or any other input, I am more than happy to include opposition members and the independent member.
I am not into setting up committees for the sake of it; I do not think we need another council of love, member for Nelson. I respect the input other members should have in regard to local government; I am aware the member for Nelson spent a long time in local government. I was a constituent of his for a long time and I do not believe he was that popular or effective, but at least he did the job.
I offer an olive branch and suggest some involvement from the opposition and the member for Nelson. I am not into abusing any powers that the parliament, I hope, will confer my way. It is more about getting the job done. Some oversight by the opposition and the independent member would be healthy and would go a long way towards destroying some of these myths or perceptions around abuse of power. I do not want to talk for too long; I am aware the opposition spokesperson would like to squeeze in a couple of words. Unfortunately, member for Nhulunbuy, the member for Nelson does like to rattle on, as he feels he is a bit of an expert in this area. He spoke for his full 30 minutes, so I will wind it up and to let you know, again, we will not be supporting the motion. However, I am happy to treat the area with a lot of goodwill and involve you as much as possible.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for bringing this motion before the House. The opposition will be supporting this motion; we see it as a very sensible proposition. As we know, the government will not be supporting it. That is a shame, because people are increasingly concerned about policy decisions being made on the run, decisions that do not necessarily deliver transparency and accountability. We all have a vested interest in working towards local government reforms; we are aware it is a really important sector and we are aware it was a game changer in the last election. We recognise the member for Nelson is very passionate about this area and, minister, I have sent an e-mail to your office seeking a briefing on Monday for the bill that came in on urgency today; it is rather a shame about the urgency part.
We do not want to lose sight of the intention of the progressive program of local government reform which was initiated by the Labor government, effectively starting with John Ah Kit who was the then member for Arnhem. He made a pivotal speech on the state of our bush communities in March 2002. It was a member of the CLP opposition who went to Hansard and sent me, some time ago, a copy of that speech. This was because it was around the time the member for Namatjira had taken on Indigenous Advancement and there was some similarity in the vision. John Ah Kit’s speech was definitely pivotal, because he talked about long required reforms we know the CLP – I will not say they had no interest in them – did not have at the top of their priority list for more than two decades. They were sitting there in the too hard to fix basket. To some extent, it was not in their interest to support a strong voice for people in the bush during their previous time in government. It took a Labor government to address the issues relating to poor service delivery, poor management of council assets and the high rotation of council staff in the bush. That was the reality of what we were dealing with in community government council. We know elected councils and council staff have worked very hard to do their job for local people and deliver those services in a fashion which is far more accountable and transparent than it was in the old days.
We know the Labor government did not get it totally right; it was a work in progress. We knew reforms would need to be introduced, but we also knew that when you are introducing reforms of the magnitude we did, trying to address decades of malfunction, it would take time, it needed to be reviewed, things need to be tweaked and monitored constantly. Labor never lost sight of the overarching objective of local government reform. It was about building a professional and competent local government workforce, to improve the representation of people in the bush in local government, the democratic processes associated with that representation, improve services and reduce the need for intervention in the business of local government. We know local government had to step in on far too many occasions to sort issues that were occurring in the old community government council days.
That is why we established the review of the financial stability of the shires – a big, thick document sitting in my office upstairs, commissioned and conducted by Deloitte. It is an important work and had we been in government, it would have guided our way forward. Unfortunately, it is not a guide for the members opposite, especially with the bill brought in on urgency today to create new boundaries. There is nothing wrong with creating boundaries; we were going down a path to review that. That was the feedback we had, but what are the financial implications of reviewing boundaries and creating new regional councils? That is why that Deloitte report is so important. That is why we supported the local government jobs program, boosting jobs in the bush. That is why we recognised the need to review, with the local government sector, service delivery standards, as well as the need to boost the voices of local people at the community level through greater powers provided to local boards. That is why we said we would work with local government to review shire boundaries this year, if we had continued in government.
This was all made very clear by our then Minister for Local Government, Malarndirri McCarthy, in July 2012. I take my hat off to her for the work she did in progressing shire reforms and the fact she was a very proactive minister in the area of local government, always available to listen to people and understand what needed to be done in taking local government forward to the next stage.
We have now had a succession of three ministers for Local Government and, along with that, two Chief Ministers, all outlining a different timetable and, to an extent, different agendas for their own version of what these local government reforms will look like. It is all over the shop – in 14 or 15 months, with three different ministers and different agendas, the local government sector and, indeed, this Legislative Assembly, told one thing and the government doing another.
Too many people have worked long and hard at the coalface, building a strong local government sector in the bush to see that wrecked through the dabbling and whims of this new government. A lot of work has gone into cleaning up the books of many of the ramshackle community government councils, addressing issues of poor services and run-down council assets, and to see this all go to waste would be such a shame. The need for this is even greater now we have had legislation brought to this House on urgency today, effectively giving the minister unilateral and unfettered powers to take over the affairs of a council. These include, it appears, our mature municipal councils under the terms of ministerial restructuring orders.
In the short space of time I have to contact these municipal council and shires, I look forward to seeing what they make of this. These proposed powers also give the minister power to suspend from office, or terminate the office of, an elected member of council, as well as the power to appoint a suitable person to take over the affairs of a council. It is small wonder colleagues on this side joke and call you King Dave. More than ever, there is a need for independent and competent oversight of this government’s activities in this area.
I am looking at the clock and will conclude my remarks at a later date.
Debate suspended.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I lay on the table five travel reports from the members for Johnston, Casuarina and Goyder, pursuant to clause 4.1 of the Remuneration Tribunal Determination 1 of 2012.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I lay on the table the Annual Report of the Northern Territory Electoral Commission for the 2012-13 reporting year.
Mr STYLES (Transport): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Tonight, I inform the House of some very good news for the Northern Territory. I congratulate the Northern Territory government team from the DriveSafe NT Remote program which took home two prestigious gongs today at the Australian Road Safety Awards 2013. The awards were announced today at the national awards lunch in Brisbane with the DriveSafe NT Remote program taking home both categories nominated in. They are the Indigenous Road Safety Award category and the State Government Award category. I would like to say well done to the staff of the department, fantastic job. I am thrilled the program has been recognised at the national level and impressed with the team’s hard work.
The Australian Road Safety Awards recognises achievements and innovations which will improve road safety across the nation. The awards are an initiative of the Australian Road Safety Foundation, the organisers of the annual National Road Safety Awareness Fatality Free Friday. The genesis of the DriveSafe NT program came when Sharon Noske, former Executive Director of Transport, and Nick Papandonakis, Executive Director of Transport Planning Policy and Reform presented to the National Road Safety Council meeting in Darwin in early 2011. From there, Karen Young and the DriveSafe team, consisting of John Kirwin, Matthew Mitchell, Chantelle Shaw and Wendy Clough have built and successfully delivered the trial program over a two-year period.
However, the DriveSafe NT Remote team has specifically requested I acknowledge most areas of the Department of Transport have had a role in the successful delivery of this program, in particular the Motor Vehicle Registry, DriveSafe urban, road safety transport support services, procurement, corporate communications and the executive team for providing strategic direction and leadership.
The DriveSafe NT Remote Indigenous driver education and licencing program is such a valuable initiative and will continue to change people’s lives across the Territory. Winning these two national awards proves how well-regarded this program is and what a great asset it is to the Territory.
Under the program, from April 2012 to September 2013, the Department of Transport has issued 396 birth certificates, 983 learner’s licences, 226 provisional licences, undertaken 250 motor vehicle registration transactions and delivered 1793 drivers licences. What a great achievement! The program is making a huge difference to our remote communities, and I congratulate the department on its hard work and tireless efforts in getting this up and running. It aims to improve road safety outcomes in and around remote communities and incorporates messages about road safety issues such as drink-driving, seatbelts, overcrowding in vehicles, speed and first aid, as well as the responsibility that comes from owning a vehicle – registration, road worthiness and insurance. It is a great pleasure to acknowledge those people. I again congratulate them all and will be asking the CEO, Clare Gardiner-Barnes, tomorrow to ensure they get the message from the minister and from this House.
That is the good news I have. I have to, sadly, bring to the House’s attention an adjournment debate speech concerning one of my constituents who passed away recently, who was a great stalwart of our community, a lady by the name of Vicky Bonson.
Vicky Bonson was recognised as an inspirational athlete and a role model to young people. One of our most famous home grown treasures, Vicky Bonson is remembered as a true Northern Territory jewel. Vicki made many significant contributions to the Darwin community and the Northern Territory way of life.
Vicky Bonson was born in Darwin in 1938, the only child of Gurrio and Lulu Villaflor. Vicky lived in Stuart Park and went to St Mary’s Catholic School as a young girl. Gurrio was skilled in the ancient Filipino art of building and managing fish traps. This was an efficient means of catching fish and Gurrio built a very successful business selling fish in Darwin. Gurrio passed this knowledge on to his daughter who became interested in this life bound for the sea. She helped her father with fishing, drag netting for prawns, clearing fish traps, tying mud crabs, and hunting geese. Sounds like a very good Territory girl! She helped her father with all those things, along with participating in a number of sports.
She was a very talented sportswoman, her favourite sports being hockey and basketball. She became an elite athlete, winning three Best and Fairest Awards in a row with Southport Saints hockey team. She also captained the Northern Territory basketball team in the Australian women’s basketball championships.
In 2006, Vicky received the Steve Abala annual Award – a Northern Territory Administrator’s medal – in recognition of her contributions as an athlete, sportswoman and role model.
Victoria married Donald Richard Bonson Jr at the old Catholic Church in Smith Street in 1956. As the years went on, Vicky supported the Nightcliff Tigers Football Club by raising thousands of dollars for that club. She then went on to the Darwin Buffaloes Football Club to support her two sons, both premiership players. Vicki ran many fundraising events and returned the Buffs to the front financially. She would chase sponsorships, arrange T-shirt designs and many will remember the famous card game at the old workers’ club.
Vicki was a true Northern Territory jewel who understood the huge influence of family on one’s life. She will be sadly missed. Her contribution to the Darwin community was huge and will always be remembered. May she rest in peace.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, this evening I will talk briefly about the Southern Districts Football Club or, as they are known colloquially, the Crocs. Their motto is ‘closer than you think’, which sums them up very succinctly in that the club is not too far from anywhere and is probably closer to the grand finals than people think.
They recently held an AGM - it was their second AGM actually - and a new committee was elected. It is a combination of dynamic and enthusiastic people. There looks to be, from what I have seen so far, a change towards a focus on family, fun and a friendly, safe atmosphere. The new president is Jim Dalton, who I know from my contact with him in the past in regard to fire matters. Joanne Burgess is the vice president. Joanne is one of the employees of the Department of the Legislative Assembly and I know she will do a sterling job because she does get involved with many community events and activities, school councils and the like in the rural area. Kylie Eyles is the treasurer, Stacey Lynch is the secretary and Sam Eyles is the bar manager. Aaron Dunster, who often comes to my office to talk about young fellows playing football – and young girls, of course – is the club development manager.
The committee also comprises Trish Espie, Renee Elliot, Tarmon Elliot, Bruce Schwarze, Peter Mullins, Lance Coghill and Peter Duffy. I wish that committee well for this season and, of course, many seasons into the future.
The club itself started in the 1980s, with a team playing at C Grade and, over the years, moved up and introduced more grades and more teams, through to about 1987–88 when they had a league team entered into the competition. The first president at that time was Frank Carbone. The club, as some of us in this Chamber would know, has produced many famous players who have gone on to AFL fame and glory, including Nathan Buckley, Fabian Francis, Alan Jakovich, Roger Smith, Brently Hughes, Ashley Manicaros and Shannon Rusca. They were in the early days from around the 80’s through to the late 1990s. From 2000 onwards, there were more star players and for a small club in the rural area, I believe it is amazing how it appears to have punched above its weight. Some of these players who went on to play interstate at that level, including AFL, are Jason Cockatoo, Kelvin Maher, Dwayne Whitehurst, Bruce Jarmyn, Anthony Corrie and Richard Tambling. They have won premierships over time and they have been hard-fought premierships. They have lost premierships across all the teams and many of the teams over the time have won premierships, including some of the players of all those teams, who have won the various best and fairest medals and the most goals kicked in the season.
When the clubhouse was established at the Fred’s Pass Reserve complex in 2008, it was set up by a big band of volunteers. These were volunteer people who were enthusiastic enough to get a club going in the rural area, businesses got involved and they helped build the facility that is now called Norbuilt Oval. It has grown from that time, it has expanded and only recently with the new committee and other businesses getting involved, they have modified the clubhouse itself and it is remarkable. They have done a lot, with hard work, lots of generous businesses giving their time and perhaps a few items. Sam Eyles Refrigeration, for example, has actually donated the cool rooms and everything that makes those cool rooms work.
The club is moving onwards and upwards. Jim Dalton is a hard-working fellow, with his family and his wife Sue, and he is keen on making it a family affair. They have changed the meals on training days such as to have - not that the food was bad before - things on the menu like salads, chicken cacciatore and chicken schnitzel so people can come to training but the young people can then stay on and have a feed and enjoy each other’s company. Since the new committee has been established, Jim has been instrumental in introducing what has been called the ‘croc sprint’, which is a 60m sprint. An invitation was issued to all the league teams to provide a runner; there were around four on the first croc sprint; the town teams were clearly scared of the speed of the Southern Districts fellows, but it was a good event. They did win sashes and awards and things of that nature and I believe the croc sprint will become well-known within footy circles. I am aware they are keen to keep it going, so next year there might be the attraction of cash prizes, which may see more people venture out from the other teams to come and test their sprinting skills.
It is very much a family club; it has a lot of young people and has just entered its third team in the under 12’s, which shows there is a remarkable increase in young people in the rural area - and elsewhere for that matter - wanting to play and get involved with young Aussie rules football.
I have had discussions with Jim Dalton, in regard to participation in some shape or form with next year’s Fred’s Pass Show. I am positive this show will happen in mid-May and we are looking to set up, perhaps on the Saturday, a torpedo punt competition and again, all other clubs will be invited to participate. In AFL, they do not use the torpedo punt much these days so it will be interesting to see how far some of our footy players at A grade can kick a ball, using the torpedo punt. This is a club that has a lot of support from sponsors; it does have player sponsors and one of those sponsors is the member for Nelson, as is the member for Daly. This helps to establish the club but would not happen without the sponsors. Some of the key ones that I know are involved are Norbuilt, Sage constructions, Sam Eyles Refrigeration – as I mentioned about all the refrigeration and the fridges – and the Bendigo Bank.
The club seems to have a lot of good background work going on; it has terrific newsletters, which I find very informative, particularly in my line of work. I pick up a lot of tips about who is doing what and where. I was not aware they have also set up a Facebook or fan page, which shows they are moving with the times and they are also trying to appeal to the young people, because that is the way they communicate and get information out. Congratulations to them all. I know they are going to finish very well this year in the season that is coming. They will hopefully take out the flag. They have got some tough competition - namely those St Marys boys - but I know they will give it a good run and I wish the new committee, Jim Dalton and all the players, families, supporters and sponsors the very best for the coming season.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to speak about Tennant Creek Hospital. In particular, I would like to speak about the Northern Territory government and the opening of Tennant Creek Hospital’s upgraded emergency department.
I would like to acknowledge the $3.7m funding from the previous federal Labor government to upgrade Tennant Creek Hospital’s accident and emergency ward. I would also like to acknowledge the previous department of Construction and Infrastructure for all the important work they did around the design and management of the contracts to deliver what is a fabulous new accident and emergency ward at Tennant Creek Hospital.
I am disappointed the minister did not invite me to the opening of the new accident and emergency ward; however, I do feel proud about being part of the previous Labor government team, working with the previous federal Labor government to deliver that excellent and important infrastructure for Tennant Creek. I do have that sense of pride and it does not really worry me about not getting an invitation to the opening. It would have been nice and it would have put paid to this culture around our new government that feels mean spirited; there is this punitive nature that is talked about within the community and it would have made sense to invite a local member.
I have had a long association with Tennant Creek Hospital, and I have tried my best to stay out of it! I have had some very interesting connections and experiences with our hospital. The first one was with the Tennant Creek theatre club in the play Doctor in the House with a number of doctors and nurses and health professionals from the hospital. We attempted to have our first child in Tennant Creek Hospital, however, that turned into an emergency and Thomas McCarthy was delivered in Alice Springs. I have been enlightened in terms of my education and knowledge of traditional Aboriginal culture through numerous connections with Tennant Creek Hospital. I have witnessed my Aboriginal mother solicit a witch doctor and take that person to Tennant Creek Hospital to administer important healing to a very elderly traditional Aboriginal patient. I also had an interesting experience with the late Vic Nelson who ran away from Tennant Creek Hospital and made contact with me to take him home to Epenarra. That is a fascinating story for another day.
I have had a lot of contact with our hospital. The most recent contact was with the fantastic job they did, in conjunction with St Johns Ambulance, when I was administering and managing rodeos in Tennant Creek. That is an incredible partnership and it gave me and the Barkly Rodeo Association committee comfort and confidence, knowing that all important backup was there and coordinated, should we need it. We chose to try and avoid it, but we had to call on it on a number of occasions; it was an excellent service. It is disappointing not to be invited to the opening, but it is great to see that project delivered. It will really improve not only the working conditions and environment for the health professionals, but also provide new infrastructure and facilities for all those patients.
Minister, I need to ask you a favour: that you address an issue that has been raised by a constituent from Tennant Creek. The constituent is Colin Hardaker; Colin is a well-known citizen of Tennant Creek, active in the seniors area, the president of the Tennant Creek senior citizens association and also active as a member of the Minister for Senior Territorians Advisory Council. He has done some interesting work as a passionate advocate for the disability sector in Tennant Creek.
Minister, what has happened since the new government chose not to renew the contract with the Royal Flying Doctor to supply GP services through their clinic in Smith Street, and return to the Tennant Creek Hospital to deliver GP services through another system? The GP clinic is very difficult to access for people with mobility devices; Colin will explain it all to you and show you how access to the GP clinic, now relocated to the Tennant Creek Hospital, is extremely difficult, almost impossible for some of our elderly constituents using mobility vehicles to get through the double doors. It is quite a pragmatic solution. I encourage you to make contact with Colin and look at what we can do to ensure disability access is provided for all our seniors and those patients who use disability vehicles to see the GP at the new clinic.
I am unsure how it works on the 5th floor these days; they changed the locks on me. I am sure, reflecting on what the previous government did, there would be some very diligent public officials monitoring this broadcast who would report this to the minister, so I ask for your support here. The gentleman who needs to be contacted by the minister is Colin Hardacre. He can be contacted care of the Tennant Creek senior citizens association. It is a fairly simple issue to address in relation to disability access to the GP clinic now located in Tennant Creek Hospital. Addressing that issue would create some work for some of our diligent contractors in Tennant Creek. I am sure it will be amicable and quite an easy solution.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak. Minister Lambley, I am looking forward to your support. It would be good for Colin to fill me in on how it all goes. I will monitor it from the side lines and look forward to a good and swift resolution to this issue for our seniors in Tennant Creek.
Ms ANDERSON (Namatjira): Mr Deputy Speaker, I speak tonight about a lady who recently became my electorate officer, Karen Berry. Karen will be leaving the Northern Territory and my office and is moving to Queensland. I want to put on public record in this House how wonderful it has been to know Karen Berry. Karen came from a very different electorate office; she worked for one of the town members, the Tourism minister, Matt Conlan. When Karen started, I said, ‘This woman has never experienced working inside an electorate office with 20 to 30 people coming in every day’ - Aboriginal constituents every day. I thought Karen would find it very hard, but she has been one of those wonderful people who has helped Indigenous people from my electorate and my communities to do their Centrelink, their banking, and go through all the problems they have. If they need to get birth certificates, a number for Centrelink or Tangentyere, or they have a problem with housing, she has helped all my constituents and it has been wonderful to have that experience. She has not only been my electorate officer; she has become my good friend. Even during our working hours inside the electorate office, we yarn about things that are happening in Alice Springs and laugh together; we are also good shoppers.
We go into Alice Springs and I think we are a bad influence on each other. She will say, ‘Come on, let’s go out for lunch’ and we know we will come back with two or three shopping bags after our lunch hour or hour-and-a-half in Alice Springs, so we say, ‘We are not a good combination. Every time we get together, we always come back with more than we should.’ It has been fantastic to have that experience, to know Karen. She is a fantastic person, a beautiful human being. I have even had comments when I go shopping in Alice Springs or to the beauty parlours from people who have become her friends, people she has worked with, people she associated with - Alice Springs is going to miss Karen.
People are saying to me, ‘Can you hold on to her? She is so wonderful.’ She has been a long-standing servant of the Country Liberal Party and most loyal. She worked for ministers of the former Country Liberal Party when it was in power, she has worked for the Tourism minister for a long time. I remember those days, only 14 or 15 months ago, when we were heading to the Territory elections. Karen would stand with Matt on the side of the road and wave at constituents from the early hours of the morning in winter as well as late in the afternoon. She is so loyal to anyone she works with. She is a fantastic human being.
It was only recently I met Dennis Berry, Karen’s husband. He is American and is a fantastic human being who would have you cracking up laughing. Do not ever disturb Dennis when he is watching his footy. You either go outside to have a conversation or you go around the corner. It was unreal only recently that Dennis and Karen celebrated their anniversary. Dennis had said, ‘I want to talk to your boss, Karen’. Karen is one of those people who does not think the husband should have contact with the local member. Karen was saying, ‘Oh, my God, why do you want to talk to my boss?’ ‘It is none of your business, Karen, I want to talk to your boss.’ So Karen dialled my number and gave the phone to Dennis.
We organised the anniversary without poor Karen knowing. Karen did not know what Dennis was saying to me. Then, I rang Karen and said, ‘Karen, can I speak to Dennis?’ and poor Karen was saying, ‘Oh, my God, what does my boss want to talk to my husband for?’ It was a fantastic gift when minister Conlan lost Karen and she came to work in my office; I absolutely adore her.
People in my electorate have loved Karen for the time she has worked for us. She is so hard-working – I call my office at 5.30 pm and Karen is still there doing odds and ends and different pieces. She is there early in the morning and is ringing constituents, sorting out problems for a person at Docker River, Areyonga, or a station, Kintore or Papunya; people know that Karen Berry will have their problems sorted. She is fantastic. If a community calls the office and says, ‘We have this problem, we need this’, Karen is drafting a letter to one of the ministers, asking for financial support for these people, getting people home and helping people out in my electorate. It was fantastic to take Karen for her first experience visiting remote Aboriginal communities. It has been an eye-opener for her.
I am very appreciative of her as my electorate officer and we have become very good friends. I do not know what I am going to do when you go to Queensland, but I guess your family comes before work now. You are in retirement mode, and I do not think any of us can stop you. I know your family comes first, your grandchildren come first and you love them to bits. I know you love us in the Northern Territory, and you are finding it very hard to leave your Beef and Burgundy friends and the friends you have also made through your contacts in Alice Springs as well. We find it very hard, Karen and I, when we go to functions and people say, ‘Oh, Karen, please do not leave. What are we going to do without you’? I can see the tears filling up in Karen’s eyes when people say that. It must be really hard, Karen, but I wish you all the best; you have been absolutely wonderful and a gift, not just to me, but a gift to my electorate. Thank you.
Ms LEE (Arnhem): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will speak about a few things; I will start with the good and leave the best for last. I want to thank the Hawthorn Football Club for coming to my electorate recently. That includes Junior Rioli, Jed Anderson and Chad Bateman, for taking the cup around the community, especially in Bulman. If you know the people of Bulman, they are staunch Hawthorn supporters and they were over the moon to see Hawthorn, the 2013 team, in the community with the cup and celebrating with the community. It was the biggest highlight of the year and the community loved it, especially the children. The players went to the assembly ground at the school, where the children were and they were swamped. There were beautiful photos and memories that will live with those children for the rest of their lives. It was the perfect moment and will go down in history.
I would also like to thank Hawthorn for their support of the Big River Hawks in Katherine. This team is made up of remote players and those from the surrounding areas of Katherine. The KDFL goes all the way to Lajamanu and back into Barunga and Beswick; there are plenty of teams. There are about 14 different teams in Katherine that play in the KDFL and every year, the Big River Hawks pick the best players at under 18 level and that team comes to Darwin to play; they have been doing really well in Darwin. I am a big supporter of the Big River Hawks because they have a lot of potential. I would like to see the over 18 side possibly make it in the Darwin league sooner or later. I am working towards that, trying to promote them.
However, like any other team, they have to start from B Grade and work their way up. I think they must play seven games a year before they can start playing the whole season. We are working on that, trying to get funds and other things together. I am sure the member for Katherine is keen on that too, because I have been pretty close with that.
Last Friday, I received a call at midnight. One of my brothers passed away and I want to say to my family that I am sorry for the loss and that I could not be there; we are all going to miss him. He had been around me ever since I was a baby; he carried me around, my big brother. I did not think I would ever lose him, but I guess he is in good hands, with Dad, Nanna and Grandpa. I am going to miss him.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Member for Greatorex
Member for Greatorex
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I seek a leave of absence for minister Conlan, Minister for Tourism, who is on ministerial duties. Mr Tollner will be taking any questions in relation to Mr Conlan’s portfolios.
Leave granted.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Members’ Behaviour during Question Time
Members’ Behaviour during Question Time
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, yesterday during Question Time, four members of this parliament were put on a warning. I stress that being put on a warning is not an accolade; it is a disgrace and we need to bear that in mind when we conduct ourselves in this Chamber. Many people watch these sittings and they take away from the sittings how our parliamentarians behave. I reiterate at the beginning of this Question Time, be very careful because bad behaviour will not be tolerated.
MOTION
Proposed Censure of Chief Minister, Treasurer and Minister for Education
Proposed Censure of Chief Minister, Treasurer and Minister for Education
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, I move that this House censures the Chief Minister, Treasurer and Minister for Education for the disastrous cuts they are making to our education system.
We condemn the Chief Minister, Treasurer and Minister for Education for:
failing Territorians in the most basic duty they have to deliver a sound education to Territorians through providing appropriate resources
consistently lying about the sheer extent of the teacher and support staff cuts
Education in the Northern Territory is in crisis. We have known that for months, and the only sensible thing to do, Minister for Education, Treasurer and Chief Minister, is to stop the cuts now.
It is not just me saying this; hundreds of teachers who have taken industrial action in recent weeks oppose the CLP government’s drastic cuts. Teachers, parents and our community have rallied again outside parliament today and have joined us in the gallery. Now is not the time to be cutting teacher numbersand support services in our schools.
We know the Northern Territory faces big challenges in the future. Teachers know that, parents know that and the minister knows that. The Minister for Education has said:
Labor poured millions of dollars into establishing secondary schools in the bush and creating a middle school system, but there has been little noticeable improvement in outcomes.
Minister, you are wrong, wrong, wrong! Investment in education delivers better educational outcomes. The 2011 Census showed more young Australians are completing Year 12 or equivalent non-school qualifications in the Northern Territory.
Proportions vary considerably across the states and territories and there is still a great deal of work to do, but we had a large increase – from 53% of 20 to 24-year olds in 2001 up to 63% in 2011. How can you say our system is not improving?
This is the minister who said teachers have ‘plenty of down time’ as an excuse to cut teacher numbers. This proves the Minister for Education is an unsuitable champion of the Northern Territory education system; he has no idea.
No one likes to see strike action, including teachers. They care most about their students. All they want is to be in their classrooms teaching, well supported and well resourced. The teachers’ exemption of exams from the industrial action and minimised disruption to kids represents this.
In contrast, while industrial action has been under way, instead of trying to resolve the dispute the Minister for Education has inflamed the situation. The minister has said:
- Don’t use teacher strikes, putting out literally thousands of people across the Northern Territory, including the children, to push the cause that doesn’t seem related to the agreement. I’m calling on the union to sign the agreement and ensure our hard-working teachers get a $95 pay rise before Christmas.
How very wrong the minister has it. The Australian Education Union Northern Territory Branch has been very clear on what this industrial action is about. The union has been clear that teachers are taking industrial action and are sacrificing their wages in order to hold your bad government to account.
The union has said:
- We made as our number one point in our log of claims the resourcing issues across the Northern Territory, this government’s slashing teachers, it’s slashing its commitment to public education … for the minister to reduce it to a salary only issue …
He does not get it. He is not aware of what is going on.
More recently, it has become clear the Minister for Education is bungling this. His failure to resolve the dispute has meant the government has rolled out the big guns – the Minister for Public Employment – to inflame the situation even more. He has said:
- This is yet another example where the union is putting their own interests before the children’s. The union’s tactics over the Enterprise Bargaining Agreement negotiations directly affect children’s safety. Parents expect better care of their children. This crosses the line.
It is extremely disappointing that it seems neither the Minister for Education or the Minister for Public Employment have bothered to read the union’s log of claims. The log of claims was prepared in the context of the decision of the CLP government to instruct the department to change the long-standing school staffing formula. The CLP’s decision was taken without consultation with the union or teachers, without considering the impacts across secondary education and what it will cause.
The staffing formula is important because it is a factor in determining the conditions under which all teachers operate. I am amazed the Minister for Education and the Minister for Public Employment do not get this point and continue to mislead Territorians on what this industrial action is about.
Ministers are bungling this industrial dispute and looking increasingly confused. The union has been clear that teachers are taking this industrial action, sacrificing their wages, to hold the government to account. Funding in education matters, and what you are doing is changing our education system for the worse.
What type of government does not invest in children or their education? What type of Cabinet can watch decisions to cut teachers and support staff numbers in schools? What sort of Minister for Education promotes education cuts? What sort of Chief Minister and Treasurer do we have that pursue these savage education cuts? The minister seems to think it is possible to trade off savings from cutting teacher numbers and increasing class sizes against increased cost of living pressures – increased cost of living pressures made by your government and decisions in Cabinet to raise power and water tariffs. It defies common sense that, somehow, reducing funding will make a positive difference.
The Minister for Education has said the Territory has the best resourced schools in the nation but has the worst results. His solution seems to be that moving to having the worst resourced schools in the nation will somehow magically deliver the best results. There is zero evidence that supports this claim.
Recently, Brian Gleeson, Coordinator General for Remote Indigenous Services, said in relation to education:
- I was able to conduct a round table in 2011 where I had 10 principals around the room. We talked about the challenges in education and, to be frank with you, after my recent visits to four jurisdictions and about 10 communities there were some encouraging signs in communities. It is patchy but it is there. The Education minister is out of touch if he thinks sacking teachers, overcrowded classroom and less individual attention for our students will somehow help our education system.
In this parliament, my colleagues and I have spoken out about these cuts numerous times. We are passionate. There are also members on the opposite side who have spoken out about these cuts because they are wrong. The member for Namatjira spoke out about these cuts saying:
- I’m not satisfied with the contradictory messages I’m getting from the ground and the minister’s office. We’re a government about transparency and honesty. Why can’t Hermannsburg know what is going on?
The member agreed that support roles are important too:
- Aboriginal support workers are incredibly important. They sit with kids in the playground, they listen to them talking, they’re able to tell the teachers what is going on for those kids.
The member has also spoken about the impacts in her neighbouring electorate of Stuart:
- People are worried. I’ve got a petition on my desk from Nyirripi. They are not in my electorate but we are here to represent all people across the Territory. I’ll be happy to take that petition to the next parliament and table it. Education is the key to anybody’s future. We want to be make sure we’ve got the highest standard in the Territory. Penalising the most disadvantaged isn’t the way to go.
That was from the member for Namatjira, your own side, minister. Chief Minister, what will it take for you to listen?
The government’s figures show a loss of 1.26 teacher positions in 2013 and a further loss in 2014. However, the Minister for Education responded by saying:
- I have spoken with Alison today and assured her that all positions at the Ntaria School will be there next year, in fact they received an increase in their allocation.
This is just one school, one example of many.
Minister, you need to clearly show us teacher and support staff numbers for last year, this year and next year. Break them down so we can clearly see what is happening in our schools. This is the number one question that school councils, parents and teachers have raised with me. The member for Goyder spoke out and was contradicted by the Minister for Education. Who should we believe? The member for Daly claimed victory in relation to one of his local schools, but we are yet to hear from you, minister, anything about this. This is what we mean; we hear conflicting messages.
The split within the CLP is there for all to see. The minister is looking after the member for Namatjira but said no to rolling back cuts in the rural areas. It is chaos. Minister, you need to support every Territory student in every Territory school. The Palmerston-based members have been silent, including the member for Blain, a former educator. I wonder why they have not been on the phone speaking to the Minister for Education about the impacts of the CLP’s cuts in Palmerston?
Rosebery Middle School Council wrote to the Minister for Education on 20 October saying:
- The Rosebery Middle School Council is very concerned with announcements made in the media and the parliament by you, as the Minister for Education, and by the Northern Territory government. As a council and as parents of middle school children we are genuinely confused with the government’s approach to education and fear that cuts you and the government appear hell-bent on making will have a lasting negative impact on our children’s education in 2014 and beyond.
Minister, I do not know what it takes. This a letter from a school council neighbouring your electorate, saying this government appears hell-bent on making cuts that will have a lasting negative impact on our children’s education.
The council went on to say:
- This cut will greatly impact on the education outcomes by significantly impacting class sizes should our numbers of 660 carry through to 2014, placing greater pressure on remaining staff to work with challenging students and will impact on the continuation of the very successful school-wide positive behaviours program; reducing the number of electives to students that can be offered; reducing or eliminating teacher capacity to support excursions, camps, trips, NT school sport participation and being at odds with your media release of 13 September on improving NAPLAN results for Years 7 and 9.
The Rosebery School Council went on to say:
- It appears that the government is giving up on middle and senior school children in the short-term on a belief that the primary school outcomes will somehow get better. It makes no sense to us as a council and to parents to cut teacher numbers when Rosebery needs them to turn educational outcomes around and cope with the number of challenging students that make up Rosebery’s socioeconomic mix. Such a teacher cut in numbers is appalling and we ask you to re-examine the situation.
Minister, why are you not attending school council meetings? Why are you not visiting schools? I have been to numerous schools in the past weeks and have heard directly from parents, teachers and principals. They are worried about these cuts. They will be devastating to their schools and our local communities. School councils, like that at Rosebery Middle School, have received a briefing on a range of issues from the department, but a lot of unanswered questions still remain.
Minister, why are you forcing these cuts on our schools but not listening to those who are affected the most: the teachers and the parents? They are speaking up, but you are not listening. They are concerned about what is happening in our schools and are worried for the future. Where have you been in the last three weeks? Our education system is in crisis. Teachers are taking industrial action, yet you duck and weave. As the Minister for Education, you need to talk, listen and take that back to your Chief Minister and Treasurer. You have been critical of previous ministers for not consulting, but you are not doing what you have always called for.
The government is wrong to say that education in the Northern Territory is going backwards. The Northern Territory has had the greatest improvements in Australia, between 2008 and 2010, by Indigenous students in Years 3, 5, 7 and 9 in reading, spelling, grammar and punctuation. These results are a great tribute to the hard work of teachers in our schools across the Territory and the students themselves. These improvements are being put at risk by the actions of your CLP government.
In NAPLAN results the Territory compares well across a number of areas. I will read some out for the Parliamentary Record because we need to dismiss this notion that the Territory is bad, that we have bad results, we are going backwards and we must stop. That is wrong. In Year 3 reading, the Northern Territory outperforms the ACT, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia. Congratulations to those students and those teachers. In Year 5 reading, the NT outperforms the Australian average. It also outperforms the ACT, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, WA and Tasmania. In Year 7 reading, the Northern Territory outperforms the Australian average. In Year 3 numeracy, the NT outperforms the Australian average. I can go on and on.
You, as minister, have used numerous excuses to try to shift the blame onto education. In this parliament you have admitted that CLP cuts are about budget rather than education, and that gets us to our point. Minister, you said the NT budget position justified cutting education:
- Let us face it. If we were in a far better fiscal position we would love to see every teacher still here.
It is your responsibility as the Minister for Education to protect the Education budget and protect teachers by not cutting their numbers in Cabinet. This is the minister who also said:
- No one jumped up and down when we lost 50 teachers, and now everyone is jumping up and down that we are losing 35.
Minister, we are jumping up and down. Parents, teachers and our community are saying you cannot cut education. You are cutting our investment in the future. It is the opportunities for Territory children that you are taking. It is the government’s role to ensure every child has access to quality education across the Territory. What you are doing will impact on students for years to come. This is why parents and teachers are so concerned. You continue to play ducks and drakes on the numbers. You are on the record as saying:
- There will be a nett loss of teaching positions across the Territory.
At estimates you said, minister, of teachers in middle and senior years that:
- At the moment, that is an overall reduction of 126.
In October you told the Northern Territory News:
- No one jumped up and down when we lost 50 teachers. Now everyone is jumping up and down that we’ve lost 35.
How could anyone believe fewer teachers is better for our education system? Everyone knows – parents, teachers – that more individual attention means better educational outcomes, better results for our students. More support means our students will learn and develop the skills to contribute positively to our society.
Only this week you refused to tell the people of Alice Springs what is happening in their schools. When asked by the Centralian Advocate to confirm how many staff schools would be capable of employing next year, Mr Chandler’s department said the most recent allocations were subject to change depending on how principals chose to administer them. The system is in chaos. We know that in Alice Springs support staff will not be there next year. Why do we know that, minister? Because people are telling us they are currently employed in a support staff role in a school, yet next year they do not have a job; they will be gone. You cannot get any more accurate than that. You claim this will have no impact on our children but support staff help our teachers every day. We are nearing the end of the school year and, minister, you are not being clear with the community.
When I was in Katherine recently I visited a school which has a program, as every Territory school does, where the children are put into small groups to work intensively. The teacher is supported by support staff and that school is improving – their NAPLAN results went up. They showed me improving results on their wave formulation, yet that school may lose up to 10 teachers and support staff next year and will not be able to offer that program. You are taking away from our Territory children. We need to work with them. We cannot turn out back on them now. Some of these children are from the most disadvantaged backgrounds. Our role as parliamentarians and your role as a government is to ensure they are supported to learn, but you are cutting support staff and those programs.
The CLP’s savage education cuts are having a huge impact in bush schools. Concerned parents have contacted my colleagues, the members for Barkly and Nhulunbuy, as well as urban members. They are concerned about the loss of Indigenous languages and cultural support positions, something my Indigenous colleagues in the parliament would be devastated by. The Indigenous language and culture positions include Indigenous language officers, language resources officers and other positions which are vital to support students and teachers. The ILC programs are important cultural maintenance programs, valued and respected by family, elders and communities.
Only yesterday, this parliament had a condolence motion for Dr Yunupingu, one of our leading Indigenous educators – one of the first. These are programs he knew we must have. I know my Indigenous and bush colleagues are critical of the government and have told the government to stop and listen, but you are not listening and these are the programs we are losing. These students will miss out.
These job losses in communities will also decimate the Indigenous knowledge worker in the bush schools. We have people telling us they are losing their positions – respected elders. The school is the hub of these communities, but you are decimating that through your actions. As a government, you should be supporting programs which encourage learning.
The Northern Territory Open Education Centre is located in my electorate of Nightcliff. This is something you have mishandled. You are so critical about consultation but you have done nothing. All you did was put out a media release when forced to because the opposition requested a briefing. It has been at its current location for many years and has studio classrooms and technology to teach students across the bush. Your government is saying that students can pick up subjects from bush school through NTOEC, yet you are attacking NTOEC. You are moving it with no plan. We do not know the cost of the relocation of NTOEC or of the music school.
I was at Sanderson Middle School recently and there are major works occurring there costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more, yet you can do all that without any consultation.
I understand you have disbanded Student Support Services and relocated the remaining staff into Harbour View. What has happened to ICT for Learning? Our children know technology better than us, yet we do not have an ICT for Learning department. What kind of Education minister allows that to happen? These are just some of the many examples and questions that have been put to us.
Minister, you have caused great disruption – a domino effect of moving, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars with no consultation. Staff in these schools are extremely worried and stressed. They do not know how they will teach. All staff and teachers across the Territory are worried and stressed. What you have done to staff morale in our schools is appalling. It might seem trivial but staff are wondering where they will be teaching and what they will be teaching. We have a couple of weeks to go. Traditionally, at this time of year teachers are wrapping up reports, doing final assessments, planning Christmas concerts and activities for the children, yet our education system is in crisis and, as a government, you are not listening.
There are teachers who do not know where they will be next year; they are in bush schools and they only know they are moving when the removalists turn up. There are stories of bush teachers having their items moved into Darwin, yet they are from somewhere else. There are teachers at some of our senior schools within the Darwin area who have families, mortgages and homes who are being told they do not have a position at that school; they might have to go bush. This is the chaos you are causing.
We spoke earlier in Question Time – we know for sure there are 105 contract teachers who will not have a job in a couple of weeks. We know there are 450 displaced staff. This, minister, is the chaos, the upheaval, you are causing. These are the stories we know. We know we need to invest in our bush system. You talked about the cost per capita to educate children in the Northern Territory. We live in a hugely sparse territory, with very remote locations, but those children deserve that investment.
Under Labor, we put secondary schools in the bush for the first time. Do you know why that was done? Because everybody knows if you leave children in their communities and allow them to learn surrounded by family and friends they will learn better. If they come into town they are likely to go off track; they need to be in their communities, learning. That is why our bush colleagues are concerned about these cuts in the bush. You need to listen to them, minister. You will not listen to me because I am the opposition and you say you cannot listen, but you will not listen to your own colleagues. The bush constituents are the people who elected you. You constantly tell us they won you government, yet you are not listening.
Minister, why is there a rush, why no consultation? You talked today of the three reviews you have taking place. Why not stop, reverse the decisions and take stock with those reviews? I understand, as a government, you have the right to implement your policies, but you do not have any policies or you are making policy up on the run and doing reviews afterwards. Just stop, reinstate teachers and leave things as they are.
A number of your colleagues have spoken to you about this and some positions have been saved, but we know many more are going. What you are doing is causing a huge disruption to schools and students, costing millions of dollars. You are not just cutting teacher numbers, you are cutting vital support staff numbers.
At Gunbalanya, they are losing five teachers – two primary, two middle, one secondary – and a number of support staff. They have no guarantee of a specialist ESL teacher for the community, where English is a second language. We are talking about a remote community where every student is an ESL student, yet they do not have an ESL support teacher. These are the things we are talking about. Ramingining is another community with similar concerns.
I call on my bush colleagues – we have an education statement later today – to raise these questions and issues.
Last week, teachers in remote and regional parts of the Territory took industrial action in Arnhem Land. My colleague, the member for Nhulunbuy, reported to me there were hundreds who took part in that rally. We saw the footage of Ramingining. They are sending a message to you and your government. We saw a number of petitions tabled in this parliament yesterday. These are messages from real people who are saying ‘stop, take stock’.
Minister, as I said, I can understand why you might ignore me, but why are you ignoring teachers? Why are you ignoring parents? Why are you ignoring your colleagues? You have an Indigenous education review taking place, but that will be meaningless without genuine consultation in bush communities, and it will be too late; you will have cut everything in the meantime. You need to stop, take stock, consult widely on Indigenous education and receive the best advice from remote communities across the Territory.
I could go on regarding the support staff number cuts. We know that 71 staff have gone, 80 have been regionalised. We still cannot see them moving across to another organisational chart. There is so much chaos in our education system and you are the minister responsible. School support positions providing vital support, such as ICT and behaviour management counselling, are gone.
Something I must raise is the GEMS program, the mentoring program for young girls. What parents and teachers tell me is the hardest cohort, due to our society at the moment, seems to be middle years girls. There are huge impacts from social media. This GEMS program was something real. Have you spoken to those girls? They are devastated. That program might have cost $1m, but that investment was worth it. Four schools – I understand there are 50 students enrolled at each school, but I know they accept every girl in those schools into the program. It provides support, it makes teachers jobs easier and it gives those girls an opportunity. You are turning your back on them and that is not good enough for our young girls.
Education of young Territorians is important. It is about our future. That is why I am so passionate. Education should be a key priority for governments, and parents and teachers are angry when it is not. The contrast could not be clearer, as a Labor party member, I support public education. I support the right of every Territory child to a good quality education.
You are a government driven by cost cutting and have been unable to provide any justification for your cuts. It is time for this minister to be condemned for not stopping the cuts to education funding, cutting teacher numbers and cutting support staff and programs.
Mr CHANDLER (Education): Madam Speaker, education is an extremely emotional issue because it touches so many people. I was a member of the Bakewell School council between 2001 and 2007, for five of those years as the Chair, under the former Labor government. Do you think things like this did not happen every year and this is unprecedented? Do you think some of the things happening at the moment did not ever happen before?
Ms Lawrie: Rubbish.
Mr CHANDLER: You are so wrong. Most of the confusing messages are spread by you and the union. If I believed just half of the things spread by the Labor Party, the member for Nightcliff and the union, I would probably be on strike too. The truth is that it is just not right.
No wonder people are confused. During those years, under a Labor government, when I was a council chair, we went through the same thing every year when the allocations were out. We would sit down, as a school council and with the principal, and work out how we would use those allocations.
I will give you an example of some of the confusing messages – if she wanted to stay in the room and listen to them. It is okay for us to listen to them …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, withdraw that comment, please. You know under standing orders you do not reference members leaving the room.
Mr CHANDLER: I withdraw, Madam Speaker, just like the member for Nightcliff.
During the last sittings …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! He did not withdraw. He qualified his withdrawal.
Madam SPEAKER: He has withdrawn it, sit down. Minister, you have the call.
Mr CHANDLER: If she not is happy, I will withdraw again, just like the member for Nightcliff.
The member for Nightcliff said in the last sittings that Nightcliff Middle School is experiencing a growth spurt and will lose eight teachers. Nightcliff Middle School is actually projected to lose 12 student enrolments in 2014 and will lose 2.56 teachers.
Ms Lawrie: No, their numbers are going up and they cannot even project a timetable.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 51. We gave the opposition the courtesy of listening patiently and in silence; I would ask the opposition to extend the same.
_____________________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, thank you, member for Port Darwin. Minister, please pause while I welcome some students.
Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of two Year 4/5 classes from Sacred Heart Catholic Primary School, accompanied by their teachers Mrs Erceg, Miss Morrisey and Miss Trudy. On behalf of honourable members, I welcome you to Parliament House and hope you enjoy your time and visit here with us.
Members: Hear, hear!
_____________________________
Mr CHANDLER: I will try to unpack a few things, but there is just so much misinformation out there at the moment. We provide briefings to the Labor opposition and the union, being open and honest. What they choose to do with that information is really up to them. What they choose to do is stir the water.
People in the community get confused. They do not know what is going on. There is anger in the community over some of the misinformation. Each year when the allocations are given to schools it is up to the principals, the school councils and the teachers to work out how they will use their allocation. I have a list here; everything in green on this list refers to schools across the Territory that will be better resourced than they were this time last year. Many schools will receive additional resources. The catastrophe in education, the crisis of education that has been so eloquently described by the Labor opposition, is just plain wrong.
I will go back to some of the things the member for Nightcliff raised, but I want to talk about some of the impacts affecting our schools today. Our schools often become a measure of the social implications affecting our society. The focus is on schools all the time because they are measured, they are places money is invested in and there are good, hard-working teachers there. As society breaks down in so many areas, more and more responsibilities are placed on our teachers. If we can remove some of those complications – as a society, a Territory government and a federal government – and can tackle some of the social implications impacting our schools today, we will go so much further in educating our children. If the social implications are causing students to stay away from schools, that is one big thing and that is where I am asking the federal government for assistance; help us get our children to school. The social impacts in our society today, coming into schools and causing everything from bullying to antisocial behaviour, impact on schools every day. Who is ultimately responsible for dealing with all those things? Our teachers. Our teachers have to do so much more today than they did years ago. As a society we need to tackle some of the bigger issues and let teachers get back to what they should be doing: educating our children. That is what we have to do.
For so many years, education has had bolt-on after bolt-on which were not really about educating our children; they are about dealing with some of the social impacts of our society. That is the truth. So many of the things mentioned today – the different programs we have running in schools, what are they for? Are they to help someone read, write or add up better? No, they are dealing with social impacts, and our teachers are ultimately responsible for them.
If you move up the chain to look at some of the administrative burdens placed on our schools – the administrative burdens placed on our Education department by the federal government are unbelievable. The Northern Territory government has about 31 partnerships with the federal government, taking up valuable time and effort for staff just to manage paperwork. All those resources are taken away from our classrooms. We need to streamline the administrative processes, from the federal government to the Territory government down to schools, to lessen the burden on principals and teachers in most of the reporting they do today, which, quite frankly, is more about numbers than the welfare or education of our children.
When I was Minister for Business, so many businesses said they would start an apprentice who had been through Year 11 and 12 and have to put them through writing or maths courses to get them to a level to cope with the work an apprentice is responsible for.
It is horrible to think we have kids going all the way through our school system who still need a top up with education before they can work as an apprentice. That does not for one moment take away some of the fantastic results we have in our schools across the Territory. There are some fantastic results and we have probably the hardest working teachers in Australia. Why? Because of the things they have to do every day in our schools, dealing with the social impacts that have a direct consequence in our schools.
We could have continued, when we came into government, going down the line of the former Labor government. I have seen the investment in education and infrastructure but, quite frankly, much of the investment is not improving our results, particularly in remote areas. There would not be a person here that could disagree that we all should be working towards improving educational outcomes for our students in the Northern Territory, particularly those children in our remote areas with all the challenges they face. That is why we need a review of Indigenous education.
For goodness sake, the last review was in 1999. It was commissioned in 1998, completed in 1999 and basically put on the shelf by you guys. There were some good recommendations. Here we are, 15 years down the track, 11 years of a Labor government, and not once was Indigenous education looked at to see how things could be improved. We need to review it today and see what changes we need to make; we need to look at what is working and what is not and resource the things that are working.
Some of the interim results coming back from that review show there appears to be a scattergun approach to education in the NT, particularly in our remote areas. The intent is probably honourable; someone is looking for that silver bullet which will change education. I do not believe there is a single silver bullet; you will need a whole magazine and a number of ways to deal with education, particularly the further we go out.
I spoke to your former Education minister, Syd Stirling, recently and he said middle years need to be reviewed. You talk about moving teachers from here to there, saying it is causing a crisis and has never happened before. What about when middle years was brought in? You took teachers from primary schools and high schools and put them into a middle years program. You created something new in the Northern Territory. You did not have specifically trained middle years teachers.
On top of that, there were agreements with the union to over-resource …
Ms Lawrie: They were used to teaching those grades.
Mr McCarthy: Years 7 to 9.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Standing Order 51 …
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, Leader of Government Business. Opposition members, I ask you to cease interjecting and allow the minister to proceed.
Mr CHANDLER: When middle years was introduced, there was recognition from the then government and the unions that they over-resourced middle years to get them through the interim period it would take to roll it out. None of those resources have been rolled back over the years. There was recognition they were over-resourced at the start.
The areas where we can do so much better in our schools are support of teachers, improving discipline and handling some of the issues occurring in our schools which are taking away from teachers’ valuable time to teach our children.
There is one thing for certain: we need to do things differently to get better results. Let me talk about three key planks in our plan to do things differently and lift education outcomes in the Northern Territory. First, we are investing more into the early years because that is where the research tells us we need to be targeting our resources: more teachers in the primary school years. We are putting over 60 teachers into Transition to Year 3 because the experts are telling us that is where we need to focus. We are putting more teachers and more resources into the area where the research tells us it is required to build a solid foundation and assist those children through the later primary years, middle years and senior years. If you build a solid foundation for a house, you have a house for a long time. We want to provide a solid education for those younger children.
Second, we have initiated a comprehensive review of Indigenous education in the Northern Territory because that is where we are failing the most, and no one can argue that point.
Third, we are reviewing the entire Education Act to ensure it will allow for changes to how we deliver education.
This government is delivering reforms in education which the previous Labor government failed to deliver in its 11 years of failure. In fact, they did not have the courage to make the necessary changes to improve education.
It is the Country Liberals government that is reviewing the Education Act, not the former Labor government. It is the Country Liberals who have commenced a review into Indigenous education in the Northern Territory, not the Labor Party. It is the Country Liberals who are introducing reforms to allow for community driven schools in the Northern Territory, something people have been requesting for some time. It is the Country Liberals who are examining the timing of school terms in the Northern Territory – again, something parents and teachers have been talking about for some time but which was never addressed by Labor. It is the Country Liberals who are focused on eliminating violent behaviour in schools through reinvigorating the Safe Schools program. It is the Country Liberals who looked closely at the student/teacher ratios in schools and made significant investment in the future of our children by reducing the ratio in the early childhood years while responsibly remodelling the ratios at middle and senior school levels.
It beggars belief that the opposition would attempt to censure the government on the topic of education. This was probably their most significant area of policy failure in the 11 years they were in government. When it came to education, Labor was a failure; there is simply no better way to describe their legacy.
I have called for the review of the Education Act. The act, and its attendant subordinate legislation, underpins all school education in the Northern Territory. The Education Act commenced in 1979 with self-government and, apart from an ad hoc amendment, it remained substantially unchanged until 2009. The act remains dated and there is a strong case for its holistic reform.
Ms Lawrie: 2009
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr CHANDLER: I just said that if you were listening. For example, the act still retains provisions which repeal the South Australian ordinances applicable prior to self-government, dealing with handicapped children, which have had no application for at least the last 20 years. It also makes provision for post-compulsory years of schooling colleges, which have not existed for several years and are unlikely to be required in the future.
The review process to date has entailed a comparison of the act with legislation in other jurisdictions to identify options for reform which could better meet the current needs of students. An entirely new act is preferred because existing provisions are already significantly disjointed due to some amendments which occurred in 2009 and 2011. It is likely the review will recommend that the whole structure of the act needs to change. I expect a draft paper will provide a basis for targeted consultation with a more comprehensive options paper to follow.
I have called for a timely review into Indigenous education. A review of Indigenous education in the NT is being undertaken. Consultations have commenced throughout the Department of Education and Children’s Services with the NT Indigenous Education Council, the Department of the Chief Minister and representatives from the non-government school sector to test the scope of the review and inform stakeholders of the review process.
Procurement processes for an expert consultant to conduct the review have been completed and the contract has been awarded to Bruce Wilson of the Education Business. The terms of reference for the review have been considered by government. The review will provide a preliminary report in December this year and the final report and implementation plan for government’s consideration in early March 2014. DECS will align its resources to meet the cost of the review at the moment. Any money we can secure from the federal government will allow us to get on and implement those changes, unlike what happened to the last Indigenous review in 1999.
Education provision in the Northern Territory occurs within a unique context and includes a diverse student cohort. Unlike any other jurisdiction, Territory schools have the highest proportion of Indigenous students, representing over 41% of enrolments across government schools in the NT. The last review of Indigenous education was in 1998 and was given to government in 1999. Despite the additional investment since then, Indigenous student literacy and numeracy outcomes in the NT fall well below non-Indigenous literacy and numeracy outcomes. They also fall below outcomes for Indigenous students from other jurisdictions.
The review will examine the impact of current programs and initiatives. It will also examine evidence and will advise on an optimal model for allocating existing resources. Clear directions need to be set for schools, including engaging with Indigenous parents and families and ensuring there is accessible information available for parents on the education standards and attendance rates their children are achieving.
It is a right of all Territory students to receive an education. With that right, however, comes responsibilities, and so often today our teachers, our schools, ultimately end up with the responsibility parents and carers should be providing.
I was speaking recently to an assistant in Alice Springs and I asked what their day encompassed. They were doing a number of things that parents and carers should be doing, which took up a big part of their day. I wondered how many other resources in education today are used to back up what parents and carers should be providing. That is the truth. As I said in the opening statement, our schools are so monitored, they are so measured. They are so in touch with our community through school councils and parents that they often become the focal point of any measurement of a community. Often, if there is a problem at a school it is something which has happened in the community that has led to it. Ultimately, the school seems to be the responsible body to attend to it. Those responsibilities have grown tremendously in recent years and more pressure, as well as responsibilities, are placed on teachers. This is undeserved because many are community issues. During my discussions with Christopher Pyne several weeks ago in Canberra, I said that helping us would involve getting our kids to school to start dealing with some of the social implications.
I really hate the term ‘whole-of-government approach’ but this will take a whole-of-government approach to sort out some of the mess that impacts on our schools and ultimately impacts on educational outcomes for our children. It is not just the Department of Education’s responsibility, not just the teachers’ responsibility, it is a whole-of-government and community responsibility to deal with some of the issues having a detrimental effect on student outcomes in the Northern Territory.
I have listened to people in many of our remote Indigenous communities and, unlike what the member for Nightcliff said, I have been visiting school councils, but she can just throw these lines away. I have visited many schools and believe strongly in our government’s belief that pursuing the community-driven schools initiative, particularly in the remote areas, is one of the right ways to go.
The Northern Territory government made an election commitment that is summarised – Aboriginal people want a greater say in how their schools are run. A new approach is needed to give more power to local communities that want greater responsibility for educating their children. That is one of the bridges required to get our children to school and something we should not be afraid to tackle. We should have the courage to move in that direction, but the wants of the community have to be met with responsibilities. While the Northern Territory government has the responsibility to govern through the act to regulate schools, it is a responsibility we will not take lightly. It is not a case of giving a school away and running it as a community-driven school; there are processes behind that. There are regulations and governance structures that need to be put in place before that can occur. It is something we are working on now.
There are many more things we could say about education. There are many issues where education affects our society, but I spoke with the Treasurer yesterday about some of the things we should be looking at in education. We really need to have an education system that can set our children up for jobs in the Northern Territory. We should be setting our children on a course to stay in the Northern Territory, and our education system should focus on that. That does not take opportunities away from children who want to broaden their horizons and end up in New York or London with their chosen vocation, but we need to provide a solid foundation and a solid education. On so many levels today we are not delivering that. I am not taking away from the good results we get in some schools, but the wider we go, the more remote we go – the additional resources put into those schools have not led to an improvement in results.
The member for Nightcliff said I have not visited schools or school councils and that is wrong. It is like much of the information she has come out with recently. It must have been embarrassing recently to do the media circus on the closing down of the Malak re-engagement centre. My goodness! I visited it and, all of a sudden, we are closing the blinds. How wrong!
Ms Lawrie: We know how quickly you backflipped.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms Fyles: We are glad you backflipped.
Mr CHANDLER: It was not a backflip; I wanted to know what was happening there. There is a big investment by the Northern Territory government. In fact, in the car on the way back to Parliament House, I thought, ‘Wow, how can we get more kids to go through that system? How can we get more children engaged in that program?’ It is a great investment. There are some great people working there, yet all we get is rhetoric from the Labor opposition, and they stand outside the Malak re-engagement centre with the union saying we will close it down. Goodness gracious, if that was to happen with every school I visited, we would have a lot of schools closed today.
It is just rhetoric and scaremongering, and we wonder why the morale in our schools is affected with the misinformation being spread. We say 35 teachers, you say 150; we say there are a few million dollars here, you say we are cutting $250m from Education next year. Wrong, wrong, wrong! You do not have it right. All you are doing is stirring the pot, and it is little wonder that teachers, parents and the community are angry because of the misinformation.
As I said at the outset, briefings were provided to not only you, member for Nightcliff, but the member for Fannie Bay and others who were interested in education, as well as the unions. We gave them information directly from the department. We do not make up these figures, they come from the department. We provide these figures to you, and you have thrown them on the roulette table and come up with 13. All of a sudden, the numbers come out triple or worse. You then come back to me and say we have a crisis; teachers and the community are in outrage. I wonder why? It is because of the misinformation being spread.
The only one who is spreading this information is you, member for Nightcliff. If you were serious about education, about delivering and improving our results in the Territory, you would be working on a solution. Your only solution is to continue to do it the way we have always done it. That is not good enough and Territorians deserve so much better.
This Country Liberals government has the courage to do what is right in education, to focus on what will work and remove these bolt-ons that cause a blowout in education and take away from what teachers should be focused on: the classroom. The more resources we can give to teachers to use in the classroom the better.
How many of our resources are taken away because of bureaucratic processes and the social impacts on our schools every day? These are things we have to deal with, but it should not always be teachers’ and the Department of Education’s responsibility.
I heard the member for Nightcliff say we are not supporting education, particularly for our remote students. I remind her, it was the federal Labor government that took away the additional funding for boarding schools in the Northern Territory, which had a huge impact on delivering a decent education for many Indigenous students. There are some great boarding facilities that lost major funding under the federal Labor government. Once that funding was gone, what happened? The student numbers dropped off.
They can talk all they like about the fact they want to support legislation. As I said earlier in Question Time today, no one wants to talk about the fact that $1.2bn was stripped out of the federal education budget over the forward estimates – slipped in before the last election. We did not hear Labor talking about that. There was $1.2bn that was once there and is now gone. It just happened to be the same amount of money that was promised to Queensland, the Northern Territory and Western Australia, the only three jurisdictions which did not sign up to Gonski, after a promise from minister Shorten that we would be looked after and would receive equal funding – wink, wink, nod, nod, the way you guys operate. There was $1.2bn stripped from the forward estimates for education at the federal level. Now what does the new federal government find? It finds a black hole left by the former Labor government, just like the debt situation here and across the country.
It does not go away if you forget or stop talking about it. The architect sits opposite. The architect of the fiscal position the Northern Territory is in today is sitting opposite us right now. We are responsible enough to work with it and manage it, unlike the former Labor government, which thinks it can continue to go on a spending spree. We have seen what spending an additional $220m on education over the last five years has done.
I have said from the outset, in the last five years the student cohort grew by 173 students. In that same time, the department employed 790 staff, many of those people on contracts. Partnerships have run out with the federal government and we are left to deal with those issues today. That is something the former government does not want to admit, but for many of the partnerships that were short term, that were contract positions, the money has stopped and we are left to deal with mopping up after you.
It will take years of reform for a responsible government to manage the fiscal position in the Northern Territory. I have often heard it said that the size of the mop required and the time it takes to clean up a mess is determined by the size of the mess. We need a very big mop and it will take a bit of time to sort out the mess left by the former Labor government, not only in education, but in so many areas.
As the Lands and Planning minister I know how the cost of living in the Northern Territory affects members today – all of the architects sitting on the other side with not enough land release causing additional pressures. This affects everyone, down to parents of children who go to our schools. The budget situation does not make it any easier, but that is not an excuse for not trying to do it differently.
You can clearly see by the graphs shown by the Attorney-General earlier that if we continue to do what the member for Nightcliff wants us to do – continue using the same methods the former Labor government used – it will not improve results. It would just keep costing more. It is timely to review how we deliver education in the Northern Territory. It is timely to get behind teachers, and we can only do that with the resources of government to focus how we spend that money today, and focus we will. We will focus on things that work and get rid of things that do not. We need to take a whole-of-government approach to this. We need to work across governments at different levels to support us to deal with many of the social impacts affecting our schools today.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the opposition is intent on trying to get the community’s message through to the Education minister, and what we have heard again is his abysmal failure to listen. He wants to believe, and he clings to the belief, we are just making it up, that it is just misinformation being peddled by Labor and the unions.
He has his head buried so deeply in the sand that it is little wonder education is in crisis. The facts are there, minister, and the shadow minister called on you to go to the schools. If you went to Ramingining School with the Chief Minister and the member for Arnhem when they visited the week before last, you would have heard directly, as they did, from the school principal about the severe cuts occurring there.
You remain steadfast in your denial of what is happening on the ground. The information the principals have is that they have had no choice but to inform the teachers they no longer have a job. That is happening on the ground. Just as the member for Arnhem has heard it at Ramingining, the member for Namatjira has heard it at Ntaria – Hermannsburg. We have heard it because we have either gone to the schools or they are e-mailing, calling and Facebooking us. They are saying, ‘Please help us. Please stop these cuts because we cannot afford to lose a single teacher from these bush schools.’
Shepherdson College on Elcho Island is losing eight teachers. It costs about $30 000 to remove a teacher from an island like Elcho, but you are steadfastly going ahead with it while you deny it in this Chamber. That is the real problem we have, Minister for Education. That is why we are censuring not just you, but the Chief Minister and the Treasurer, because of your denial of what is happening on the ground.
You believe people are so stupid they will not see it for themselves. The teachers who filled the galleries today did so because at their schools they are losing their colleagues, or they are contract teachers – I know some of them – who are losing their jobs. They know it is happening to them and their colleagues. They also know about the support staff they are losing at their schools because it is now so late in the year, people are starting to be informed. But not all schools, minister, have full details of what they are losing yet. It is way behind schedule, and you heard someone from the gallery interject to say, ‘No, we do not have that yet, minister’. You are saying one thing and on the ground the fact is quite different.
The opposition has consistently challenged you to provide the details to the principals who you now say have to do their job and work out what to do with their complement. Provide that school by school and publicly release it. We heard Taminmin College was losing five teachers. We then heard, with the advocacy of the member for Goyder, those five teachers were being saved. You then went on ABC radio and said the cuts would go ahead. We have heard from the school council it is a total complement of 20 staff – a combination of teachers and support staff. When a school council that sits alongside the school principal provides that information, you need to tell us and release the facts if that is not the case. School councils are telling us of the extent of the cuts as the information lands.
You say enrolments are dropping at Nightcliff Middle School, but the school council sees reports that enrolments are increasing. You say only five teachers are going from Sanderson Middle School, yet eight teachers are losing their jobs. You say you want to see effective programs in the schools, yet the GEMS program was axed from four schools while it remains in others. Minister, you claim this information, but you provide no public documentation to counter what is being said.
We have consistently asked you to release the information provided to school principals. You claim you have provided it, yet you have not released it, tabled it in the parliament, released it to the media or handed it over in briefings. Minister, you will have a second speaker, and I am sure if you have the information you will have the opportunity to table it today, school by school. Let us be clear about what we want: the teachers and support staff. As you heard in debate, a lot of Indigenous jobs have been lost in bush schools because of those all-important Indigenous linguistic and cultural officer positions, the home liaison positions, the front office admin staff positions and the teacher aide and support positions. They are the 150-odd support positions being axed.
When you provide the school by school breakdown, let us be clear about this, provide it for both teachers and support staff. Those two Indigenous women per school being axed as a result of the GEMS program, make sure they are on the list because we know they exist. We know they are wage earners today and we know they are being sacked through your decisions, Education minister.
You would have us believe we are making this up and somehow the people of Ramingining are being hoodwinked, the families and community of Taminmin College are being hoodwinked and the people of Areyonga are being hoodwinked.
In this parliament yesterday, members of the CLP tabled petitions. The member for Goyder tabled a petition with 113 signatories from Yuendumu opposing the cuts. The member for Namatjira tabled a petition with 62 signatories from Areyonga opposing the cuts. The member for Arnhem tabled a petition with 99 signatories from Ramingining opposing the cuts. You maintain these people are being misled by Labor and the unions because they have misinformation. Wrong! These are members of the school staff and school community who know what is going on in their communities, in their schools. They are seeing the jobs lost and you have your head firmly buried in the sand.
It beggars belief that a government can say, ‘We are undertaking reviews into education because we want better outcomes. We want to hear from the experts about what is a better way of achieving learning outcomes for our students.’ Prior to the reviews, you proceeded with axing hundreds of positions from education, teaching and support staff positions. In what logic do you slash the Education department budget, cutting and sacking across teachers and crucial support staff before you have a result from your reviews? Who does that? The CLP, because they are so foolish, stupid and rash.
To deal with it, they lie about the numbers of teachers being sacked. You say 35, but 105 teachers have signed up to the education union because they are losing their jobs this year. You lie about support staff and the Commonwealth funding. First you tried to blame the Commonwealth. ‘We are only cutting because the Commonwealth has ended partnership funding.’ You blamed it all on Commonwealth funding cuts, which you spread to unions in meetings and then through teachers, classrooms and staff rooms.
That is interesting. I said to the union, ‘You might want to ask for the list of the Commonwealth partnerships that have ended to precipitate these funding cuts. Why do you not ask for a list from the government?’ Well, they did. At the next meeting they had with the department and the government they asked for a list. They are still waiting for that, minister. I know 200 teachers are funded under the national partnership agreement for 10 years and you are only a couple of years into that agreement under Stronger Futures. Senator Scullion contradicted you on radio in central Australia – was it radio or newspaper? – saying, ‘Actually, the funding is still there for the buses to get the kids to school from the town camps of Alice Springs …’
Mr Elferink: That is not true.
Ms LAWRIE: I will pick up on the interjection. Senator Scullion is saying the funding is still there and the member for Port Darwin is saying it is not true. Who do you believe?
By all means, show evidence of the Commonwealth partnerships in education that have ceased in the calendar year 2013 and will cease in the calendar year 2014. Show us. You have not answered the request from the union for good reason: it is lies. The 200 teachers in the bush funded by the Commonwealth is a 10-year funding agreement. You are a disgrace!
You then tell the big lie, which is an embarrassing thing to do anyway, that government would dis its own education system. You do this because you are so desperate with the big lie that it is all a failure. We are failing in our education outcomes. However, you have issued media releases lauding the success. Do you forget what you have said? The former CLP Minister for Education, Robyn Lambley, the member for Araluen, said that results released in September 2010 indicated in 11 out of 15 test categories Territory students outstripped the national average rate of improvement and were the most improved in the nation for reading, spelling and grammar.
There is no doubt we were coming off a low base, but what were we doing? We were improving at the fastest rate in the nation, not failing like you would have everyone believe because that suits your lies.
In 2010, Labor said the Territory was at the start of at least a five-year, if not 10-year, journey to improve education outcomes. You have taken an axe to that without your own reviews being finalised to offer expert opinion on what you should do. Every government comes in with its policies, but a government that takes an axe to an education system without even finalising its own reviews to show them the alternative is plain stupid. This is a dereliction of duty to Territorians who elected them. The greatest irony is the people you are hurting the most – the cuts are deepest across the bush communities – are the people who elected you.
Minister Lambley, when she was the Education minister, said:
The NAPLAN figures show the percentage rate of improvement in AANMS (at or above the National Minimum Standard) in the Territory is stronger than in other jurisdictions and that Territory students tested in 2008, 2010 and 2012 showed the greatest gains nationwide.
The shadow minister for Education talked about the genuine results occurring with Year 12 graduations. We now have the shameful situation where the CLP’s Indigenous policy is being bandied around even before the results of your review. It says you will remove senior education from bush schools; you will take us back over a decade to the bad days when the students could not graduate in their own community. You bandy that policy around before you have even finished your Indigenous education review. It is being done, not by a team of expert educators from the Territory, but by a guy called Bruce Wilson from Victoria. How far and how deep did you search for him? Why did you ignore the reasonable request to put senior Indigenous educators on the review team? People like Gurruwun Yunupingu?
Debate suspended
PETITIONS
Destruction of NT Education
Destruction of NT Education
Ms LAWRIE (Karama)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition not conforming with standing orders from 229 petitioners relating to the destruction of NT education by slashing teacher funding.
Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- NT students face loss of subjects, even larger classes and much less individual help under the new and unworkable funding formula for schools. They will lose specialist teachers and be left further behind children in the rest of Australia. Please help them.
Destruction of NT Education
Ms LAWRIE (Karama)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition not confirming with standing orders from 2157 petitioners relating to the destruction of Northern Territory education by slashing teacher funding.
Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- NT students face loss of subjects, even larger classes and much less individual help under the new and unworkable funding formula for schools. They will lose specialist teachers and be left further behind children in the rest of Australia. Please help them.
Historic Town of Southport
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 124 petitioners praying that the historic town of Southport be provided with infrastructure. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders.
Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- To the Honourable Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory. We the undersigned respectfully showeth that the historic town of Southport be provided with town infrastructure to reflect its rapid growth due to the sale and development of the many untraceable owner blocks. We petitioners, therefore, humbly pray:
1. that money being held in trust from the sales of untraceable owner blocks be set aside and used for infrastructure development within the town of Southport
2. that a Southport development committee be established with representatives from Litchfield Council, NT Planning Authority and Southport Progress Association to consult and advise on development priorities.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
MOTION
Proposed Censure of Chief Minister, Treasurer and Minister for Education
Proposed Censure of Chief Minister, Treasurer and Minister for Education
Continued from earlier this day.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, before we went to lunch I went through the myth busting situation where the government wants to pretend this is about fixing education outcomes because the Territory has been such a poor performer. I went through the facts that had been led by the former CLP Education minister of how results have been improving across each of the testing periods, across 2008, 2010, 2011 and 2012 and show how we were performing. In 11 out of 15 test categories, Territory students outstripped the national average rate of improvement. I also spoke about the NAPLAN results showing the Territory comparing really well. In fact, Territory students were outperforming across Year 3, 5, 7 and 9 reading. They were also outperforming in Years 3, 5, 7 and 9 numeracy. This is myth busting in terms of the government’s big lie that this is all about the education system being one big failure in the Northern Territory.
I also spoke about how the government could convince anyone that cutting teachers from our classrooms is a good thing to do. Why would you want to lose teachers from Gunbalanya, Maningrida and Melville Island? You have to question what is happening with the cuts in real time at the schools.
We are now seeing members of parliament who are in government standing up to these ridiculous cuts. We are seeing the members for Namatjira, Goyder and Arnhem starting to speak out against their own government, against these horrific and very damaging cuts to education.
Sadly though, what we are seeing is the Chief Minister, the Treasurer and the Minister for Education failing to heed very strong warning signals coming from within their own government ranks, just as they did not want to listen to CLP members and the rank and file at the weekend during the CLP Central Council. They are deeply concerned that the wrong thing is being done in education in the Territory.
Education is the bedrock of providing our children with the brightest possible future. We do not exist in a perfect environment and the Minister for Education is now shifting the blame to parents. That is an easy and simple thing to do when you do not understand there are children living in tents in Ramingining because you have demolished the houses and not put them into transitional housing.
It is not an easy environment and none of us are pretending we have all the answers yet. You admit you do not know what you are doing in your policy settings because you are reviewing the Education Act. You are reviewing Indigenous education and middle schools; all of these are policy on the run reviews, but so be it. Get the evidence. Why would you cut education in any way before you had the evidence to tell you where you should apply your resources? The 105 teachers who are losing their jobs in a couple of weeks’ time will have to find work elsewhere, and herein lies the rub for many of us.
We are going to lose very talented teachers from our education system because you are in deep denial about the real impact of the cuts you are putting in place across our schools. Not only will we lose very good teachers – try the eight teachers losing their jobs on Elcho Island, being sent off the island from Shepherdson College at a cost of $30 000 per teacher to relocate. A dear friend of mine has already been told he is out. He is leaving Gunbalanya and will end up in an urban primary school in Darwin because we have displaced teachers.
I have already had a friend say goodbye to that Gunbalanya community. They are heading down south to teach in South Australia because they have lost their job at that community. This is real; this is not misinformation being peddled by Labor. Anyone who genuinely wants to know what is occurring simply has to go to their school council meeting and ask the principal what is occurring.
Members are very silent when it comes to Rosebery Middle School because that school council is trying to fight these cuts. Whether you look at the urban environment of our middle schools, Taminmin College or others, the government has created a disaster.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, the Northern Territory government is building a sustainable system that is better designed to meet the needs of Territory students and improve their results. Let me outline some of the facts that explain why we need to reform education in the Northern Territory.
Firstly, our schools and teachers are the best resourced in the country. This is highlighted by the 2013 report on government services which shows the Northern Territory government has consistently funded schools at a higher rate than other jurisdictions. Overall, the Northern Territory student teacher ratios are among the best in the nation.
I will refer to some statistics. In 2014, the teacher/student ratio will be around 11.8. In the ACT, it is 12.8, Tasmania 13.7, South Australia 14.3, Western Australia 14, Queensland 14.2, Victoria 13.6 and New South Wales 14.1. Despite this, our children’s school results are the worst in the country, and despite the fanciful illustrations by members opposite to try to explain that our NAPLAN results are the best in the country when they are quite clearly the worst.
Our 2013 Northern Territory NAPLAN (National Assessment Program - Literacy and Numeracy) – results show the lowest student attainment in Australia in every test domain and year level, despite what Labor is saying. Unfortunately, this is consistent with previous years. We know our teachers work hard, but we have an obligation to our parents and children to take decisive action to turn these results around.
We know over the past five years there has been more money, over $210m, and more staff in education, with 741 staff appointed in that five-year period. However, the investment in that frame has not produced the results in education outcomes as best illustrated through the NAPLAN results.
In education, just like every other government service agency, we need to deliver quality outcomes in the most efficient way that gets the best opportunity for people in life. We need a new approach to education if we want to improve outcomes and develop a skilled and capable workforce that contributes to the Northern Territory economy. One of the first things my government is doing is refocusing attention on early education with an additional 63 teachers. These are the only schooling levels where smaller class sizes have been proven to make a significant difference, but I will get back to that evidence shortly.
The Northern Territory government is determined to apply an evidence based approach to all decisions and implement what works. That is why we have commenced three reviews into education in the Territory: the student/teacher ratios in middle and secondary schools, the effectiveness of stand-alone middle schools and Indigenous education. These reviews will all be completed by early next year. Recently, the man heading the Indigenous education review, Mr Bruce Wilson, said in media:
- We should not be spending resources where they are doing little good and there have been really limited learning outcomes.
In other words, we are spending money, but not getting the deliverables we expect for that investment. When we talk in such terminology about the deliverables we expect for such investment, we are talking about kids not achieving the results we expect. There clearly needs to be a better way of doing the business.
It is very clear that we need to build the evidence from those reports and ensure what we are investing in is right for the Territory and the Territory’s future. For too long, we have been expecting improved results while doing the same tired old Labor thing. As I mentioned before, the beginning of this change is through a greater focus on early years. We have reviewed the available research, and my government has decided to create an extra 63 teacher positions in the early years where it is proven increased investment yields the best results. The early years are clearly where these teachers can make the greatest difference laying the foundations for life long planning.
The other area that makes a big difference is attendance. Undoubtedly, the biggest challenge facing our education system is school attendance. Poor school attendance, particularly in the bush, remains one of the government’s core concerns and is a key driver of the poor outcomes. The Indigenous education review will propose ways of increasing attendance, but parents must also take the ultimate responsibility for ensuring their children go to school.
Under the government’s education reforms, the Territory will still be among the best resourced in the country. In the NT, our maximum class size is 27 students per class in our middle and senior secondary schools, and I will refer to class sizes in other jurisdictions. For example, in South Australia Years 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 all have a rate of 30 in their class; however, we currently provide one teacher for every 14 students in senior secondary and one for every 16 students in middle schools. When you take our poor attendance into account, our actual average class size is approximately 12 students per class in our middle and senior secondary schools, the lowest in the country by far. In fact, in some of our remote schools there are more teachers than students on some days.
To compare, Queensland has a maximum class size of 25 students per senior secondary class and manages to meet this ratio by staffing schools at the ratio of one teacher for every 23 students. It is a more efficient service with much better outcomes from an education point of view. There are so many teaching resources in some of our senior secondary schools but many staff have face-to-face contact with students that is well below the 21 hours 20 minutes they are required to be servicing. In some schools, teachers were teaching an average of less than three-and-a-half hours per day. All other jurisdictions are looking at delivering better outcomes through a better and more efficient teaching service.
Queensland has agreed to abolish maximum class sizes and Western Australia is looking at increasing its class sizes rather than employing new teachers as its student cohort grows. Despite all this, when the reform process is complete, the Northern Territory government middle schools and secondary schools will still be the best resourced and staffed schools in the country. Future decisions around the number of teaching staff, how to improve quality and so forth will increasingly be vested in school councils with the strategic support of the department utilising the outcomes of the reviews under way.
I appreciate the voices of concern the general public are showing. I appreciate the concern that has clearly been shown by some members on both sides of the Chamber, although there have not been any direct approaches to me. We are reforming the education system to ensure we have the smartest kids going into the future to support our growing economy. As a government, we are obliged to do that, particularly with the amount of investment we are making. We want the best outcomes in education. If we were achieving the best outcomes for that spend, it might be a different argument; however, we are spending enormous amounts of money and not achieving the outcomes. We want to look for smarter ways of doing business so we can have a more sustainable Northern Territory in the future.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I am also concerned about the state of education. Whilst I support the general line of this censure motion, I always find it difficult if the word ‘lying’ is present. If this had said, ‘Consistently hiding the sheer extent of the teacher’ or something like that - I might not agree with the Minister for Education’s policies, but I cannot call him a liar unless I have some hard evidence. I might say the government has been a bit tricky, I might say it is hiding the facts, but I always find it difficult; perhaps that is the way I was brought up, but I support the main thrust of what the opposition has brought forward today. I hope the minister listens to some of what is being said because what I will read today is not coming from me necessarily, although I have my own concerns; it is coming from people who have many years of experience and know what is happening on the ground.
Minister, I know figures and statistics are being quoted but when I talk to principals, as you do in the normal run of your job - I do not want to see any principal in trouble because I talk to principals about lots of things - I hear about the real stress they are going through at present. They are concerned about what is happening to their school because they are compassionate about their schools. Next year they want their schools, at the beginning of the school year, to be up and running with all hands on deck so the kids, the first day they get to school, away goes the school into the first term. Many principals have no idea what will happen next year. They do not know who they will have teaching, and they do not know which teachers they will lose. As a number of them said to me, ‘We are so sad some of our best teachers, the ones parents say are great teachers, will be lost and we have no say in keeping them because we will be given these other people’ - who may be good teachers, I am not knocking the people who are coming in for redeployment – ‘and we will lose some of our best teachers’.
I spoke to a young Aboriginal girl the other day, in my electorate, who is finishing her studies in Education this year. She cannot get a job. She was expecting to get a job, but I gather graduates from university are last on the list for having an opportunity to get a job within the Department of Education as a teacher. I hear these things and I know they are coming from people who know what is going on, on the ground.
Minister, I will read this letter from the school council at Taminmin. It is far better than I can say and I hope it reinforces there are real issues out there. It is not just about 35 positions being removed, it is more than that. This letter was to your Chief Executive - and, by the way, I have been told there has been no response yet to this letter. It says:
Taminmin College Council met last Tuesday, 12 November 2013, and, in response to widespread community …
I was at that meeting, minister:
- … concern about staffing cuts to teaching and non-teaching positions, this issue had been placed on the agenda. In accordance with section 71C(1)(b) and (d) of the Education Act, the principal was questioned in relation to the needs of students and teachers and other staff, to enable council to make recommendations to yourself with respect to the provisions of those needs. When council interrogated a variety of data, it became apparent that the statistics quoted by the Minister for Education that 35 teaching positions and 71 non-teaching positions will be lost across the Territory, is grossly inconsistent with information being received from affected staff. Whilst government may believe it is a clever use of semantics to refer to ‘nett teaching positions’ rather than portray actual staff loss, it shows not only a disconnect with the community, but also arrogance. Every teacher and administrative officer removed from schools is an actual staff loss, irrespective of whether their classification is permanent or contract.
Concurrent with the discussions about staffing cuts, council analysed the DoE Strategic Plan 2013-2015. One of the few actions that could demonstrate a higher level of stupidity than the current slaughtering of public education, would be that a document purporting to care about public education is circulated at a time when a huge number of DoE employees are under significant stress; ...
I have seen that stress, minister.
- … when many have not received confirmation of whether they have employment in four weeks’ time; and when the department has considered it acceptable for public education to be severely inconvenienced by wealthy private school interests which appear to be at the forefront of the department’s decision-making.
Whilst it is pleasing that the document acknowledges that ‘quality education is the key to positive participation of Territorians in our community and our economy’, council foreshadows that the delivery of this will be inhibited by a government which clearly sees education as a cost, rather than an investment.
Council only had to read to page 2, paragraph 3, before it identified the first inconsistency between the strategic plan and the current staffing situation at Taminmin College, which will be outlined later in this letter. Council will continue to dissect the strategic plan to identify misalignment of the Principles, Goals and Values with actual resourcing over coming months, but given that council appears to be the singular entity that has, as a priority, the welfare and mental health of staff, the current focus will be on their ongoing employment.
On 12 November 2013, council resolved that I advise you, and others, of the unacceptable situation that 30 Taminmin College staff have not yet received confirmation of whether they will have employment in 2014. This is despite there only being four weeks remaining …
- … of Term 4. These are people, not statistics, who have absolutely no certainty of whether they will be able to meet mortgage payments, or whether their families will be able to celebrate Christmas. Council noted that, whilst many members have voluntarily served on councils for over 10 years, never before have they witnessed such a blatant disregard for staff welfare. In regard to the Strategic Plan 2013-2015, to effect Goal 3 (page 17) and Goal 4 (page 19) which requires the retention of high quality staff, this would require the department to be an ‘employer of choice’. Quite frankly, with the undervaluing of the profession of teaching, and the associated lack of support for education services by the government over recent months, council cannot understand how the department will retain any quality staff for long-term investment in NT education. It says much more about the integrity and personal commitment of individuals that schools have continued to function, rather than any departmental actions that have occurred to support them.
Following data interrogation, council became aware that approximately 25% of the teaching staff (20 positions) are contract teachers. Fifteen of them are currently without contracts for 2014. Council is concerned at the number of contract teachers, as in October 2012, the then Education minister Lambley announced that ‘the department will offer permanent contracts to all teachers recruited to middle and senior secondary schools from the 2013 school year onwards’. In addition, there are 10 contracted administrative officer positions, expiring in December 2013 (all but one in less than four weeks). In regard to the administrative officer positions, at our meeting on 19 April 2013 we discussed the permanent filling of six of these, after I provided you with a copy of the written approval for this which was signed and dated October 2012. When this approval was given, many of these staff had been acting in these positions for over two years. Over 12 months later, nothing has happened. It is inconceivable that it could take over 12 months to action an approved decision and is evidence of gross departmental inefficiency.
It is also of concern that questioning detected that the principal’s contract has also not been finalised, despite me discussing this matter with you at our meeting on 19 April 2013. It is unbelievable that, whilst educational leaders are being required to support and implement particularly unpalatable and distressing decisions, the principal has not been accorded the courtesy of security of tenure. Council requests this matter be attended to forthwith.
Following council’s meeting on 12 November 2013, I was delighted to receive the Minister for Education’s press release on 14 November 2013 stating that schools principals had been issued with school staffing allocations for 2014, which would allow them to ‘plan their final teacher and administration staffing configuration, to meet their school’s program needs. Principals will now finalise their staffing mix after taking into account their local context and school needs.’ However, this is factually incorrect. As you are well aware, the local context of Taminmin College is that it is a comprehensive high school, consisting of a middle and senior school, and is also a registered training organisation delivering nationally accredited Vocational Education and Training courses, with an enrolment of over 1000 students.
The college has nearly 1000 digital devices requiring support and maintenance to ensure that ‘programs are reflective of 21st century technology’, as outlined in your message on page 2 of the strategic plan. Further, in July 2013 your department confirmed approval and funding for 2014 VET courses in Cert II in Rural Operations and Cert III in Agriculture, which will contribute to effect Goal 5, page 21 of the strategic plan. I excitedly attended Taminmin College on Friday, 15 November 2013 seeking confirmation that I could advise council that contract staff were able to have their employment for 2014 confirmed before this weekend. However, this was not the case, as discussions are still to occur within the department over the coming week in regard to whether ‘displaced staff’ will be allocated to positions.
Despite the minister’s statement that principals have the ability to ‘finalise their staffing mix’, in fact, the principal is unable to do this as approval is yet to be received for a trade of positions for the ICT Manager and the Trainer/Farm Manager. In the event of these approvals not being received, Taminmin College will not be able to support and maintain digital services and there is no prospect of delivering your commitment on page 2 of the strategic plan concerning ‘21st century technology’. In addition, despite the previous departmental confirmation of funding for Cert II Rural Operations and Cert III Agriculture programs, without approval for the VET Trainer/Farm Manager, these two courses will not be able to be delivered. Council requests your immediate confirmation of these approvals, before parents, industry and the community are informed that Taminmin College is no longer able to engage in partnerships and cannot offer the previously advertised Cert II and Cert III courses; and that there will be no 21st century technology available at Taminmin College in 2014.
- Assuming that the discussions concerning ‘displaced’ staff and the two approvals are attended to this week, this then leaves three weeks to conduct 16 selection panels, several of which will include a council representative. This is an unworkable time frame not only for public servants, but particularly for volunteers who will need to take leave from their paid employment. Council therefore requests that contracts are extended to existing staff and the selection panel process will be commenced early in 2014.
Whilst council is supportive of continuous improvement in public education and welcomed the minister’s advice in his press release that there would be an evidence-based approach to reform, council noted that there does appear to be a concerning lack of evidence to inform recent decision-making. In particular, the current severe cuts to middle and senior school staffing have pre-empted the findings of the reviews into student/teacher ratios; middle schools and Indigenous education.
That has been spoken about today and I agree. Why was everything not put on hold until the reviews are completed?
- It is also of concern that, whilst the Minister for Education states in his press release that the current ‘system is failing our students’, there has been no announcement of key performance indicators to ensure adequate monitoring and assessment of the new system. Council assumes that there would have been a consultation period to engage and inform parents, and their representative school councils, of impending education reforms and the rationale for these, but unfortunately all council members missed the advertisement of these meetings. In the interests of continuous improvement, and open, accountable and transparent government, would you please provide council with performance indicators that have been identified for 2014, 2015, and 2016? Council will closely monitor whether educational results are improved by increasing the number of students per teacher in middle and senior schools, noting that the allocation does not actually translate to what occurs in classrooms which is always substantially more students.
- Council has also requested that I remind you of the minister’s commitment at our meeting on 13 August 2013, that ‘all notified absences will be considered as attendance for the purposes of the staffing allocation’. As this commitment was made over three months ago, council expects that it would have been translated into departmental procedures, and requests a copy of those procedures.
As previously advised, council will continue to dissect the strategic plan over the coming months, however, one issue that council immediately wanted to provide comment on was Goal 4, key action 1, page 19 in regard to flexibility, autonomy and global funding allocations. As per discussions with yourself and the Minister for Education on 13 August 2013, council suspects that global funding could be a means for the department to employ unethical practices to implement additional funding cuts, as it may be more difficult to determine whether sufficient funding has been allocated to cover some expenses (such as ES&PM and relief teachers). Taminmin College Council has an expectation of a high level of transparency and that the key word in key action 1 –‘more’ – is adhered to. It should also be noted that council does not support global funding in the absence of increased school autonomy – the issue outlined above where the principal is unable to trade positions to ensure we have staff to meet our school context is evidence of insufficient school autonomy.
Further, in regard to council’s earlier concern that the government clearly sees education as a cost, rather than an investment, in accordance with Section 71C (1)(c) and (d) of the Education Act, council recommends that you:
investigate avenues to increase parent volunteers in schools, to perform some of the functions that will not be able to be undertaken due to cuts to both teaching and non-teaching positions. This could involve increasing the availability of flexible working practices to public servants and the ability to utilise a prescribed amount of ‘carers leave’ to undertake volunteer work in schools (similar to the NAB Volunteer Scheme). Lack of parental engagement and support is a contributor to declining educational outcomes and action is required to educate parents about the vital role they play in the area; and
conduct an assessment of long term savings which would be realised in departmental areas such as correctional services, health, family, law, police (and there are many others) if a higher level investment were made in education to support proactive, preventive programs, rather than an existing system which favours funding to reactive, postvention programs.
I look forward to your immediate attention to the staffing issues outlined above so that affected staff can receive confirmation of the employment.
I realise it is a long letter, members, but I think it is important. That is coming from the grass roots.
I would like to comment on the last paragraph. I also believe it is a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face. We have many people in prison. It is known if you develop early intervention schemes you will reduce the number of people going to prison. If we start to reduce the number of teachers dealing with kids who have behavioural problems, for instance, will we pay for it down the track? Government cannot have silos where the department of Education operates separately from the department of Corrections or the department of Police. It needs to look at these issues holistically because we will end up with more people in prison.
I spoke to the Isolated Children’s Parents Association recently and they have concerns about group schools being disbanded. They said it seems the government has decided to get rid of group schools and have a regional model. No one knows what the regional model is and it is nearly December. They have no idea what the future is. Were they involved in getting rid of group schools? I do not believe so.
There are issues with small schools like the Douglas Daly School which will only have one teacher. They asked if there was an OH&S issue if the teacher has a heart attack or hurts themself. Is anyone there to help or do you have a 10-year-old kid ring for assistance or try to help the injured person? They said previously they always had a part-time person working in that school. Those are some of the issues that have been mentioned to me about the changes.
We mentioned NTOEC. Minister, I am totally cynical because during the Estimates Committee you told the member for Fannie Bay you would save $6.6m by cutting the number of teachers. In fact, you kept repeating you were inheriting a budget deficit. The question is: where do you find $11m to move NTOEC, which does not need to go? I spoke to Vicki Proud, Chair of the NTOEC Council, and she said it did not need to go. Are we shifting it to move The Essington School there? You found $11m but do not have $6.6m to employ teachers.
I looked up the figures and, yes, there were 700 more teachers from about 2007 to about 2012. However, 200 of those teachers were picked up to work in remote schools. That was in 2009-10. I am not saying those figures are wrong, but statistics are statistics and need explanations. Where did those people go? What were they for? Where are they now? Without some detail, it is purely a number.
There are some issues. Teachers, students and principals are hurting and we need to do something. The government needs to wake up pretty quickly, otherwise they will not be around next election.
The Assembly divided:
- Ayes 8 Noes 14
Ms Fyles Ms Anderson
Mr Gunner Mr Chandler
Ms Lawrie Mr Elferink
Mr McCarthy Ms Finocchiaro
Ms Manison Mr Giles
Mr Vatskalis Mr Higgins
Mr Vowles Mr Kurrupuwu
Ms Walker Mrs Lambley
Ms Lee
Mr Mills
Mrs Price
Mr Styles
Mr Tollner
Mr Westra van Holthe
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Pass Bill through all Stages
Pass Bill through all Stages
Mr TOLLNER (Local Government and Regions): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Local Government Amendment Restructuring Bill 2013 (serial 60) passing through all stages at these sittings.
During the October 2013 sittings, this House passed the Local Government Amendment Act 2013. That act, amongst other things, introduces regional councils as a new category of local government council, in addition to municipal and shire councils, and introduces local authorities, whose primary role is to improve and enhance community involvement in local governance structures.
Honourable members will be aware that I foreshadowed further changes to legislation during the passage of the last amendments. It is clear the next step to facilitate further changes is this enabling legislation providing the power to make change. As honourable members are aware, I have already announced we intend to make boundary changes to include the Daly and all areas west of the Daly to provide greater control over the delivery of services within the changed boundaries. This is what more than 100 Indigenous Territorians representing clan groups from Peppimenarti, Daly, Wadeye, Palumpa, Nauiyu and surrounding homelands and outstations have told us they want. That is what our government is giving them …
A member interjecting.
Mr TOLLNER: Sorry, I am speaking to that motion, Madam Speaker.
Ms Lawrie: It is not your second reading?
Mr TOLLNER: No, this is the motion to suspend standing orders to pass through all stages at these sittings on urgency.
As I was saying, more than 100 Indigenous Territorians said at a meeting attended by the Chief Minister, the local member, Gary Higgins, me and others that they want their own council, and that is what our government is giving them. We are also listening and consulting, and researching other possible council options.
This legislation gives me the power to create a prospective council. This body will eventually become a new council in Daly. This will ensure the development of the prospective council will be transparent. The entity will be able to make all the necessary arrangements for transition. I will establish a transition advisory committee with relevant stakeholders so, as plans for a new council develop and progress, the transition committee can provide guidance and advice. However, we cannot establish this new prospective council and the transition advisory committee until the legislation is passed. Until that time, everything is up in the air. The changes have now been identified. People know them and want them. We now need to begin the long and thorough process of implementing them.
The people in the Daly region want a new council and know a new council will be established. I need these restructuring powers to establish the prospective council. Waiting for the next sittings, to pass the legislation will exacerbate the situation. The sooner these appointments are made, the sooner they can get on with the many tasks associated with restructuring the council.
Similarly, the current council, the Victoria Daly Shire Council, is also in limbo. They know there will be a new council established over some of their area. However, they cannot get on with their new task of divesting services to the new council and refocusing their services on the remaining area until we establish the transition committee. This committee will deal with these matters, and the sooner we have a transition committee and a new prospective council, the sooner the process can be completed. This will allow two strong and vibrant councils to provide services to their constituents in place of the current one.
To get this process happening and provide clarity to the people affected by these decisions, this legislation must be passed now as urgent legislation. A delay would mean another three months of uncertainty, doubt and hardship for all Victoria Daly Shire Council constituents, and council staff in particular.
With each passing day, the local government system, introduced by the previous government, continues to further marginalise already disadvantaged Territorians living in regional and remote communities. It is time to put an end to that disenfranchisement put in place by the Labor government and return a voice to Territorians residing in communities. That is what the Country Liberals government stands for, and I am very proud to be part of it.
This bill will provide us with the powers to get on with the job of giving Territorians in regional and remote communities what they have overwhelmingly advised government they want. The powers include establishing a prospective council to start the transition process of the area that will be created by new boundaries to form a new council area which must be done without delay. This legislation is not something new. The previous government introduced a similar bill in 2007 that also sought to restructure local government and which led to the creation of the current shires.
I invite all honourable members to contact my office to arrange a full briefing on this legislation by the Department of Local Government and Regions staff.
This is very important legislation. It is crucial for the restructure of the local government system. It will go a long way in righting the wrongs the previous Labor government did to Territorians residing in regional and remote communities. They took their voice away from local governance matters. It will help provide some certainty to the staff who know there are plans to divide the shire into two councils, but as yet have no idea how this will impact on their jobs. The bill does not in itself change anything for the local government system. What the bill does is give me the power I need to put in place the necessary processes to effect those changes. It is urgent so we can move forward and give people certainty into the future.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): It will not surprise the minister and members opposite that the opposition opposes this motion to progress the new Local Government Amendment Bill on urgency because we do not believe there is a case for urgency. The only urgency appears to be saving the political necks of members opposite who have made certain commitments and deals with certain people. They are not interested in consulting, let alone with us, with key stakeholders, people who live in these regions, key stakeholders like the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory. The prospect of the member for Fong Lim having more power is a scary thought.
Just under two months ago, on 10 October, we had a debate in this House in line with proper process for amendment to the Local Government Act. That debate related to the establishment of local authorities and the renaming and rebadging of shires as regional councils, and a consequence of consultation with the government’s local government reference groups and bush communities. There was a commitment to consult and provide time, yet suddenly we find it is on urgency and needs to be rushed through.
It is pretty typical of this chaotic and dysfunctional government we see opposite us with ad hoc policy on the run. Here we are, with the third Local Government minister in a little over a year, and I wonder, like with the strategic Indigenous reserves and education policy matters, if there are a few divisions internally on your side.
I look forward, when this debate eventually comes on, to hearing from all members opposite, including those who represent shires and bush electorates, and to hearing how extensive the consultation has been and why it is so important this motion goes through on urgency.
During the last sittings, much was made about the consultation by the minister and how a sound consultative process had underpinned the changes being sought in that bill. That will not happen this time, will it?
We did have a good and informed debate, as we should, about the merits of those amendments. We went to the committee stage, we had many questions, amendments to important legislation relating to the third sphere of government in the Northern Territory, and the bill was passed after further amendment in committee stage. That is how a democracy works. This is how this parliament works – proper and informed consideration of the bills brought before us. The laws that come out of this place do not just belong to the political party in power on the day; they are presented for proper and responsible consideration by all members of this Legislative Assembly.
There is capacity to bring legislation to debate on urgency, but that is a departure from the usual and preferred practice. It is a diversion from the norm for some very compelling reasons, and we are not convinced there are compelling reasons here. If there were compelling reasons, it would be something around the fact the legislation is required on urgency to prevent some immediate harm to the community. It may be used in a situation where the Territory would suffer financial disadvantage if legislation was not passed by a certain date, or if we are part of a national agreement requiring action by a certain time. We can turn to advice on parliamentary process, such as our green handbook, the fifth edition of the House of Representatives Practice, which guides our national parliament. It says that consideration of debate on urgency may be influenced by factors such as:
- its subject matter – whether the bill is of a controversial nature, whether it has the general agreement of the House or whether it is of a ‘machinery’ kind;
the nature of the government’s legislative program;
the urgency connected with the passage of the bill;
agreement reached between government and opposition; and
the number of members from each side who wish to speak on the bill.
There is a principle that debate on urgency is not the preferred path for controversial legislation and a suggestion of the principle of agreement on the need for urgency. There is no such agreement whatsoever, and this is deviating from the norm; then again, this is typical of the dysfunctional government we see opposite.
Even if we turn to our own standing orders, Standing Order 179 provides for consideration of bills on urgency. It reads:
- The Speaker may, on the application of the Chief Minister, or a Minister acting on the Chief Minister’s behalf, declare a bill to be an urgent bill if satisfied that the delay of one month provided by Standing Order 178 could result in hardship being caused.
Exactly what hardship is being caused, and to whom, needs to be explained by the minister. He did not explain that. It is all about political expediency, about fulfilling promises they have made to certain people without committing to a process of consultation, explaining how they will fund these boundary changes and what sort of notice they have taken of the financial sustainability report that was produced by Deloitte. There was no mention of that. That, of course, is because it is not about hardship; it is about convenience for the minister for Local Government and an arrogant abuse of parliamentary process.
We now know what the bill is about – the purpose of the bill in terms of boundary changes following a recent meeting at Peppimenarti and a commitment that was made to a new local government authority in the Wadeye region. I just wonder what level of commitment, given some of the information I have received from the Victoria Daly shire about how they will be involved in this –they have not been involved in the discussion from what I understand.
The Chief Minister said on ABC radio as recently as 6 November that people he had met with at Peppimenarti had decided they would like a new local government boundary between Port Keats, or Wadeye as most people now respectfully refer to the community, and Daly River. He said:
- We have said that we are very keen to get that going by 1 January.
Is that what this is about? CLP short cuts to make the Chief Minister look good on the back of his Tiwi land grab, allegedly in the interests of Indigenous economic development.
The Chief Minister also said, in the same interview in response to a question from Victoria Daly Shire councillor, Steve Hennessy, who I heard on radio that morning, that the government was working out the structural changes into the future.
The minister for Local Government is working out a process of how to do that, how to engage with the current shire, how to work with staff to make sure that we have a smooth transition.
In our last sittings, the minister spoke of his aim of having new regional councils by July 2014. The Chief Minister now says he wants the change by 1 January. This government is all about cutting corners. It is about sheer arrogance in government. Standing Order 178 is there for a reason; it stands to require a reasonable time – one month for the Assembly as a whole to research and consider proposed legislation once it is tabled, time to consult with constituents and industry stakeholders and to engender informed debate and lawmaking. That is the reason we are all here.
We do not support this motion. We strongly reject the call from the Local Government minister to have this bill dealt with on urgency during these sittings.
Mr HIGGINS (Daly): Madam Speaker, I support this motion. There has been a commitment to separate the Daly shire, and when we talk about consultation, the hypocrisy from the other side is extravagant, is it not? The now opposition created documents prior to the shires being set up. They talk about us not allowing consultation; we have since had extensive consultation, an election, and the people more than spoke as to what they wanted.
For the Chief Minister to visit Peppimenarti is the final outcome of that – make a commitment and put a date to it. I applaud him for that, and believe we need this legislation put through as soon as possible so there is some clarity, not just for the people there, but also for the staff. To wait for the next sittings, which I believe are in February, is absurd. We need to get real in this House and do what the people elected us to do: introduce legislation which makes their lives better.
I fully support this motion. The reason this government was elected was because of the inaction of those opposite.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I make it clear, even to the member for Daly, I did not support the previous amalgamations of council. If he was here he would have noticed 40 or 50 cars going around this building twice until we convinced the government to scrap the amalgamation of Litchfield. I never agreed with the process and always believed it was wrong, because what happened was predetermined. I attended the meetings in Litchfield and I know what it is like when governments decide what will happen, but that is no excuse for avoiding due process.
The last time we had an urgency motion, from memory, was when a lawyer found licences to discharge waste water – which was confused by the member for Fong Lim as something to do with Mataranka water – were not legal and if legislation was not changed, Power and Water would have been in breach of the act. That is urgency, this is not. This is debating due process. We are a government, a parliament, which respects processes; we do not abuse processes and this is an abuse of them.
Local government needs to be respected as well. You have not even shown us the decency of putting this bill forward first so we can read what we are supposed to be debating on urgency. My understanding is it gives you the power of a dictator – you have full power to scrap people’s jobs and kill a council. Does that mean Darwin City Council could be scrapped tomorrow if you say yes? Could you sack the Mayor of Darwin under your act? We do not know. You want to put something so serious through within a week, and we cannot talk to local government about whether this is what they want.
This is not just about Wadeye, Maningrida or Groote Eylandt; this is about some fundamental, basic rules for how local government is run in the Northern Territory. Local government should be run in a democratic way. The people who get rid of elected members are the people who voted for them, not some minister in Darwin. Your laws, I understand, will give you the power to do that, and you want us to believe that type of thing should be rushed through? There are some fundamental issues here which are not being pushed through because of some promise you made to some people – 100? What is the population of the area? Probably 3500, 4000, maybe more – one hundred people said they want a new council?
I am not against boundary changes. You change one boundary; what effect does that have on another boundary? You do not know. ‘We are going to set up a prospective council.’ Who will run that? Will it be like the old councils the opposition put together at the start of council reform, where they brought in people from interstate, paid them nearly $0.25m and said, ‘They are in charge’?
There are many issues which need to be discussed, and you want to put it through on the basis of ‘uncertainty’. If I was on the council, I would be uncertain about what type of legislation is being put forward and the future of my local government. You say there is ‘doubt’! What doubt? At the moment, they exist. There is no doubt about them, they exist. If you put doubt into their minds, of course they will start to fear. You say there is hardship. Hang on! Why would you change the boundaries until you have an understanding of the viability of those councils?
Your previous Local Government minister said in her media release:
- Stage two of the reforms …
I have not seen stage two of the reforms yet. Is this it? You are going to rush this through today.
- … will involve a full review into sustainability and viability of regional local government in the Northern Territory. Any further changes such as boundaries will be a result of this process.
That is from the government. Are you breaking that promise? That is a promise from the government; you have not done it. You are going to shove this thing through at a rate of knots when you have not done the work. If you change the boundaries you may end up with a worse local government situation than you have, because viability and how they raise money was one of the major problems highlighted in the Deloitte inquiry. Why would you change boundaries before you know what the viability of those new councils will be? You might make the Wadeye council perfectly viable because most of the ratepayers live there. You might have stuffed up the other part – Yarralin, Kalkarindji, Timber Creek, Pine Creek – and they may no longer be viable. Who has done a report on that? ‘No, we have to rush this thing through. I am going to take over the place; I am the king, the King of Fong Lim!’
You have powers in that act which basically give you – I do not know whether you could even appeal against what you say. Are there any appeal rights if you say a council or councillor is sacked?
You are rushing through something where no one has had a chance – the Local Government Association knows there is something on the cards to change boundaries. That is one thing, and I have heard that. I have heard the member for Daly say it, but that is not what this argument is about. You are asking people, on short notice, to support a piece of legislation which we have not read, which has, as I understand – one member said to me, ‘You will go ballistic’. My understanding is it gives you almost unfettered powers as the minister. Surely, that is not something this government really wants to put its hand up for without due consideration.
We have spoken about reviews of the council. We have the Advance Planning Bill the minister has put out for consultation. You are going to push through a very important piece of legislation that gives you wide-sweeping powers based on, ‘We need it without delay. Get on with what they want.’
Have you spoken to the little lady under the mango tree? You know the residents are the voters in local government, not clan groups. They are all equal. This is not a cultural thing. This is local government; it is the provision of essential services to people, whether they are at the top of the pile or the bottom. They are the voters for local government and they should be respected. If you have a meeting and a barbecue with 100 people and say, ‘That is what they want’, it may be what they want, but have you tested it amongst the ordinary people? Have you given them information about it? You should go there and inform people of your process. You should say how you will make this council viable, or will you keep supplying them, as the Northern Territory government, with a lot of money to prop up these councils? There are big issues here and you are going to take them on because you made a political promise you would give these people a new council.
I do not have any problem with boundary changes, if they stack up. That is why I put forward a motion looking at a boundary commission. This is what that type of document should be like. This is a report from the Local Government Reform Commission in Queensland. It performed a lot of work. There were independent people on that commission and it took time to do it so it came back with a report the government could hang its hat on. If you change Victoria Daly Shire, what happens to MacDonnell Shire or Central Desert Shire? What happens to shires that back on Victoria Daly Shire? If you take Maningrida out - I believe it is in West Arnhem Shire - what happens then? Is West Arnhem Shire no longer viable? Have you done those studies? ‘We will go down this path on urgency because the people want it without delay.’ You would hope people would decide what they want when they have been informed, and I do not think you have informed people about what is going on. You have just said, ‘We promised you this, we will do it’. It sounds like you are just going to do it, come hell or high water. If that is good government, I will eat my hat, and if that is good process, I will eat my hat; that is two hats. This is getting a bit like amateur half hour.
Mr Elferink: You would just hang a hat on the report.
MR WOOD: That is right, yes. I expect the minister and the department to act in a professional manner; the way Queensland did. Whether you support amalgamation or not, they went down a path which was professional. You are not going down a professional path. This has political hairs hanging off it; it is about the next election. It is not about the good administration of local government. It is not about viability; you have not done the work to show it. I would agree if you said, ‘We have done the work and we will now introduce that to parliament and we can bring these boundary changes to parliament. We have discussed it with the people. We have looked at the viability of these changes and have worked out ways they can increase their revenue.’ I would say ‘good on you’.
What you are going to do is introduce a bit of dictatorial legislation which gives you almighty power to do what you like. That sort of legislation needs to go to local government. You should treat local government with respect. I know you have spoken to them but you have not spoken to them about the details of the bill because no one has seen it. We will see it when this debate is finished. Why will you not give that legislation to local government first and let them discuss it? It affects more than Wadeye, Maningrida and Groote Eylandt. It affects every local government in the Northern Territory and they should have time to comment before you rush it through.
There is no urgency on this bill. This is pure politics in the party sense, not the pure politics in the way we operate in this House. It has been done for party political reasons to look good. It makes a sham of open and transparent government.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I will keep it quick. I will read something to you from 30 August 2007.
- Mr McAdam (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would permit the Local Government Amendment Bill (Serial 101) passing through all stages at this sitting.
It is all right for the other side to whinge when they did it themselves.
Ms Lawrie: On amendments.
Mr ELFERINK: This is an amendment; he is bringing forward an amendment. You guys are shonky as hell. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Goodness gracious me, to hear the hypocrisy from members opposite is incredible. You guys set the benchmark and you are now whinging; good luck to you. I support the motion.
Mr TOLLNER (Local Government and Regions): Madam Speaker, I thank everybody who has spoken on this motion of urgency: the members for Nhulunbuy, Nelson, Daly and my good friend, the member for Port Darwin. I appreciate all of your comments and I will respond to some of the points raised.
I can understand there is some reluctance, in principle, to support an urgency motion. Generally, that is the case with any urgency motion; people are reluctant to support it. The Minister for Health just said to me, ‘They did not even want to support the urgency on mandatory treatment, despite the fact it saved lives’. The opposition kicked and screamed and said, ‘No, you cannot rush this through on urgency’. That is what oppositions do. I think the opposition wants us to do nothing, to make no changes.
In their world, the way they did things was the best way of doing things, and I applaud you for thinking that. You could not get elected doing things you do not believe in. That is what you believe, but we received a clear mandate from the Northern Territory to change local government. These changes have been 12 months in the making. There has been significant consultation across the entire Northern Territory, and the Opposition Leader now says, ‘Oh, no, let us have another review. Let us have some more consultation. Let us do anything that will stop us from doing something.’
They are all about doing nothing, similar to the member for Nelson. Member for Nelson, I am not suggesting that urgency motions are the order of the day. I sincerely disagree with you that I am set up as some sort of quasi-dictator. That is clearly not the case. At the end of the day, we all answer to this parliament and to the people. To think we will have a dictatorship anywhere in the Northern Territory is ridiculous. I ask you to think on that and on the role you play here and the chance of any one of us becoming a dictator in the current system we have; it is ludicrous to expect that.
There is some urgency on this, and the point made by the member for Daly is pertinent: people are expecting change; they are looking towards a change, but there are other people who are sitting in the middle of it where everything is up in the air, particularly the workers. It is interesting that people on the other side consider themselves the great champions of the workers, but in this case, they have no regard for them. They do not care that the future is uncertain for the workers of the Victoria Daly Shire. They know something is in the wind. They know there will be two councils created from their one, but they do not know what their future holds, and that is what we are trying to resolve for them. That is why there is urgency.
When you find a place that almost unanimously decides it wants to be on its own, we have said, as a government, we will listen to people and, where practical, will respect their points of view and implement what they want.
That is clearly not the view of the team on the other side because that is not the way they handled local government. It was done with very little consultation. People were not happy, and at the last election they paid the consequence for those decisions they made in the past.
However, there is nothing to suggest we are doing anything wrong. I will repeat my invitation; my door is open for anyone in the opposition, or the member for Nelson, to have a briefing on this bill. I will ensure I have the most senior people in the Department of Local Government to answer all your questions and provide information to you. There is nothing unusual about this motion and I commend the motion to the House.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 13 Noes 9
Ms Anderson Ms Fyles
Mr Chandler Mr Gunner
Mr Elferink Ms Lawrie
Ms Finocchiaro Mr McCarthy
Mr Giles Ms Manison
Mr Higgins Mr Vatskalis
Mr Kurrupuwu Mr Vowles
Mrs Lambley Ms Walker
Ms Lee Mr Wood
Mr Mills
Mrs Price
Mr Styles
Mr Tollner
Motion agreed to
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AMENDMENT (RESTRUCTURING) BILL
(Serial 60)
(Serial 60)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr TOLLNER (Local Government and Regions): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
It is a priority of this government to give a voice back to people in regional and remote communities and to listen to what is required to strengthen the existing local governance arrangements in these communities. We know changes are required to the local government system. This government has moved quickly to commence real change. We will be transitioning large shire councils into regional councils, and it is anticipated local authorities will be established and functional by July 2014.
There are still further changes which need to happen and we are continuing to consult. We are also assessing the implications of changes to local government including financial sustainability. We are committed to making responsible decisions. In order to change the local government structure in the future, to create new councils where they are needed, and to enable all the ancillary arrangements to be made it is necessary for me, as the Minister for Local Government and Regions, to have the power to make restructuring orders.
I am pleased to introduce the Local Government Amendment (Restructuring) Bill 2013 which will give me the powers I need to restructure local government as appropriate. It is not new to this House that such powers are required when changes to the system of local government are being made. The previous government gave themselves similar powers when they were creating shire councils. As the Minister for Local Government and Regions, I will be able to make various types of restructuring orders including orders to abolish or constitute a council or local government area.
It may also be necessary for me to suspend or terminate the term of office of any member of a council or to call, cancel, defer, or suspend an election. I will be able to direct a council to take action, if necessary, and I will be able to apportion assets and liabilities between councils.
The powers given to me by this legislation also include the power to create a prospective council. This will be an entity which can eventually become a new council. This will ensure the new entity is clearly evident and transparent during its development. Such an entity will be able to start making all the necessary arrangements for transition. Wherever a new council is to be established, I will establish a transition advisory committee with relevant stakeholders so, as plans for a new council develop and progress, the transition committee will be providing guidance and advice.
To ensure that members of the public are aware of any restructuring order made, the order will be published in the Gazette as well as a newspaper circulating widely in the local government area affected by the order. Restructuring orders will also be tabled in the Legislative Assembly within six sitting days after they are made.
The process for establishing a new council will include establishing a prospective council and transition committee. The transition committee will be composed of key stakeholders. There will be a manager and acting chief executive officer appointed to the prospective council. The acting chief executive officer will be answerable to the manager who must report to me regularly on the progress of establishing the new council. When the fully-fledged council commences there will be elections and the new council members will use a normal recruitment process to recruit and choose their new chief executive.
Using a prospective council, many of the administrative tasks can be undertaken to form a new council without interfering with the business of the current council. The manager of a prospective council will meet regularly with the transition committee and seek their advice. The acting chief executive officer will be able to organise things such as a common seal, bank accounts, accounts with suppliers, business systems, and IT and communications networks. The acting chief executive officer will prepare a plan, budget, and staffing structure in consultation with the transition committee and the manager.
One of the first things that will be done is the initiation of a website for the prospective council so regular updates on the progress of establishment will be available to the public.
The powers contained in this bill are necessarily broad and they are critical for local government reform but these powers can only be used for the purposes of the reforms. There is a sunset clause so that the powers will expire on 1 January, 2016. I am proud that this government is moving forward and fixing the governance problems that have grown in the regional and remote areas of the Northern Territory. I commend the bill to honourable members and I table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Take Two Bills Together
Take Two Bills Together
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice) (by leave): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the two bills titled Advance Personal Planning Bill 2013 (Serial 41) and Advance Personal Planning Consequential Amendments Bill (Serial 54):
1) together be debated, and in one motion be put in regard to the second readings, the committees report stage and the third readings of the bills and
2) be considered separately in the committee of the whole.
The reason I am moving this motion now and have not done so earlier is these bills were introduced at separate stages in two different sittings of this Assembly; they are, however, inextricably intertwined. I have signalled my intent to the independent and the opposition and they have initially indicated their support for this cognation of the two bills and, therefore, had little more to say on the matter other than to say that it is good common sense.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Mr Deputy Speaker, we welcome the very sensible approach from the Attorney-General. The two bills do have the same policy intention and the debate really is uniform to the two bills in whether we support or do not support them. I believe I can indicate to the member we do support, but we will get to that debate soon. A sensible approach is to have one debate and for the two bills to be read together. We appreciate the approach from the Attorney-General and look forward to debating the bills.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I also support what has been put forward. It is common sense, which is refreshing after the last debate we had. I look forward to the debate we will have on advance planning.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank honourable members for their consideration of the issue and I appreciate the support.
Motion agreed to.
ADVANCE PERSONAL PLANNING BILL
(Serial 41)
ADVANCE PERSONAL PLANNING (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL
(Serial 54)
(Serial 41)
ADVANCE PERSONAL PLANNING (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL
(Serial 54)
Continued from 29 August 2013 and 17 October 2013.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, on behalf of our side, not only do we support the policy intention of this bill to allow people greater control over their lives if they face a situation where they cannot make decisions for themselves, we also support the genesis of the bill and the consultative process that led to its development and the development of the bills we are debating today.
The bills continue the work of the previous government with the living wills reforms. People of any age, at any time, face the possibility of losing the ability to make decisions about their future. This is not a situation confined to later life, though as we see, as people age, it is something you do think about in later life. This bill is for all. Tragically, through a car accident or the example of the sporting injury given by the minister, it is quite possible for a healthy Territorian to be robbed of their ability to make decisions, though I do not want to be too alarming. A person can choose to do nothing and family will look after you as they do now. However, there can be times, as we have seen, when difficult decisions need to be made. That rare possibility can tear families apart, and having the clarity and certainty of an advance personal plan is an important option, an option this bill will provide.
There are two bills in relation to this legislation; the original bill and the consequential amendment bill. We are now debating them together, and I thank the Attorney-General for his sensible approach. The policy intention of the two bills is the same, and the consequential amendments make sound changes to the original bill based on further feedback which was sought.
The consequential amendments have emerged as a result of consultation on the original bill. I commend the Attorney-General for the extensive consultation he has undertaken in relation to this bill. A draft bill was released for comment and forums were held across the Northern Territory. Submissions were received from bodies such as the Law Society, NAAJA, COTA, as well as many others. Their feedback was taken into account in the finalised bill and the consequential amendments we have before us. The consultation and feedback process stands in stark contrast to the approach of the CLP in other areas and legislation. In relation to another bill to be debated during these sittings, the Alcohol Protection Orders Bill, no consultation has taken place and the Chief Minister defended this by saying consultation starts when the bill is introduced to parliament. He also said that, regardless of any feedback, he would not be considering any amendments, although I just received a piece of paper from the Chief Minister which I will have to look at in detail later.
I am glad the Attorney-General has completely ignored his Chief Minister’s approach to consultation and legislative reform. I encourage the Chief Minister to follow the approach the Attorney-General has taken to this bill. It is because of this consultative approach we have a very good bill before us, a bill we are happy to support. Consultation is not hard. It can be as simple as the question asked on the consultation paper for this bill:
- Are there any general issues or concerns that should be addressed in relation to the Advance Personal Planning Bill 2013?
It is not that hard. It would not have been hard for the Chief Minister to ask for similar feedback on his Alcohol Protection Orders Bill. Advance personal planning is an important area, but addressing the skyrocketing rates of violent crime we are witnessing in the Northern Territory is as important, if not more so to many and should receive the same attention. If we can consult on this legislation, then surely we can consult on legislation that pretends to address the most important issue we face.
This bill was introduced and then held over while the consequential amendments were drafted and introduced; the Attorney-General has done the right thing in making sure this legislation is correct. As we as a legislature develop and debate legislation, it is important we look at the processes that lead to good legislation. In this case, if the Attorney-General has undertaken an extensive process and the legislation is sound, the Attorney-General can take great confidence as he passes this bill that he has community support for it.
We so often have to come back to this House to fix legislation, close loopholes and make clarifications. Much of the legislation we are debating during these sittings falls into that category. There can be reasonable grounds for a loophole to emerge after legislation is passed, but it is best to get it as right as we can the first time. That will only happen if we consult, welcome feedback and ask for feedback – if the government asks for feedback on its legislation.
The development of this legislation compared to the development of the alcohol protection orders legislation should be a legal case study on the importance of consultation. It is clear proof that consultation leads to better legislation. The head in the sand approach of the Chief Minister has led to flawed legislation. I once again congratulate the Attorney-General for standing up to the Chief Minister and insisting the community gets a say. Unfortunately, the alcohol protection legislation is fundamentally flawed. The approach of the Attorney-General should be taken by the Chief Minister. The CLP should hold off passage of the Alcohol Protection Orders Bill, like they have done with the Advance Personal Planning Bill, until they have consulted and taken views of experts, including the police association, into account.
Interestingly, as I spoke with stakeholders regarding this bill and the Alcohol Protection Orders Bill, they have all rejected the Alcohol Protection Orders Bill and urged me to encourage the opposition to oppose it. However, during those same meetings, they urged me to make sure we support the Advance Personal Planning Bill. The different approaches to the consultative process resulted in very different responses from stakeholders.
I now turn to the specifics of this bill. Advance personal planning is an example of how implementing a simple principle can be incredibly complicated. Like much legislation, the intent is simple, but drafting legislation that takes into account all the complexities and different potential scenarios the legislation may one day have to address is a very difficult task. I thank the representatives from Justice who provided the briefing on the legislation. It is clear they have gone to a great deal of effort to try to translate the intent into comprehensive legislation that accommodates any and all situations that may arise.
An individual can currently provide power of attorney to a person to look after their affairs if they no longer have the capacity to do so. This only applies to financial and property matters. There is no legislation which deals with future binding decisions in relation to health and the provision of care. This bill sets out to achieve this. People will essentially be able to provide medical powers of attorney to a chosen person.
The bill provides for three things: advance consent decision, advance care statements and the appointment of people to make decisions. The Attorney-General’s second reading speech goes through these three things in considerable detail. Advance consent decisions are legal documents for the making of future healthcare decisions; these decisions let people know how they have decided to be treated and what decisions they may have made for antibiotics or radiation treatment.
The bill clearly outlines what decisions can be made in advance and what cannot. It outlines what decisions may still require a court order.
Advance care statements are written statements that mainly relate to the future provision of care and personal arrangements and must be followed by all decision-makers. They are like value statements; they establish what a person believes on a broad range of issues and provide guidance for either appointed decision-makers or, if no decision-maker is appointed, their carers, health providers or others who may need to know.
Appointed decision-makers must be over 18 and are appointed by a competent adult to be trusted to make decisions for them should they lose capacity to do so. The bill clearly outlines decision-making principles. Decision-makers must comply with the aforementioned advance consent decisions and advance care statements. It should be noted advance consent decisions and advance care statements can be made without decision-makers being appointed. In this case, the decisions and statements apply as a general statement.
Decisions of the appointed decision-maker carry the same legal clout as if they were made by the individual. The bill provides for serial decision-makers; for example, someone may appoint their spouse and this cascades down to their children should their spouse pass away, or one may choose to cascade their appointed decision-makers.
This can be established in advance and it could be a very sensible thing to do in case the circumstances that see someone incapable of making personal decisions have also, unfortunately, occurred to their appointed decision-maker. It is possible to appoint different decision-makers for different decisions. It is possible that someone prefers their son to look after their health and care decisions and their daughter to look after their financial and legal matters, or the other way around. These are examples of the flexibility built into this bill which address the fact every situation is different. These are examples of appropriate flexibility and law that arise from consultation.
The bill contains several supporting provisions that, essentially, put in place proper processes around the three main components. I will not go through them all, but they are standard protocols around witness statements and the approval of complying forms. Of course, given this bill deals with people for whom it has been determined have lost their decision-making capacity, there are provisions which ensure this determination is subject to a robust process and immune from potential abuse or misuse.
The bill assumes decision-making capacity until the contrary is demonstrated. The bill takes into account that determining capacity is not necessarily a static situation and fluctuations in capacity can occur. Any disputes in relation to this must be resolved by a court, and this is appropriate.
Sadly, there is the possibility that at some stage in the future a person may seek to misuse or exploit the provisions of this bill for their own gain. This bill seeks to provide an easy approach for the 99% of responsible people, while at the same time seeks to inoculate the legislation from abuse and exploitation.
The bill provides for a central registry, which is important as it provides quick access when a situation arises. However, it does not rule out a properly written advance personal plan if it conforms but is not registered – if someone has made their decisions properly known then it should not be ruled out because it has not been registered.
I strongly recommend that people register their advance personal plans. There is the situation of how this bill has to interact with existing legislation, and for decisions around land the advance personal plan must be registered.
No matter when you make your advance personal plan to ensure your wishes are honoured, make sure people know you have one. Please register it, make it available in your home in an obvious spot, or a spot where you have let people know it will be.
When someone is prescribing future medical decisions, the dilemma arises that emergency medical attention may be required prior to medical professionals having access to these consent plans. It is not realistic that an ambulance officer in an emergency will delay lifesaving efforts until such time as they have checked it complies with the advance personal plan. I know it has become a habit – and we discussed this during the briefing – that if you have a health situation that means you have considered this in advance. One of the things you may do is leave your advance consent decisions on the fridge, with the fridge being a common spot in most homes. First respondents are aware of this and check, and if they have the time when responding, will ensure they abide by those plans.
The bill accommodates the concerns of medical professionals. Medical professionals can only be at fault if they knowingly act in contravention of a medical plan. The vast majority of plans will not preclude any lifesaving efforts. I am comfortable the concerns of medical professionals have been accommodated in this bill.
As the Attorney-General pointed out in his second reading speech, these concerns were raised and addressed through the consultation process. I am comfortable the provisions of this bill make it compatible across jurisdictions which, of course, can and will occur.
In conclusion, I quote the Attorney-General from the conclusion of his second reading speech:
- This important bill was developed after a comprehensive consultation process.
If only all important legislation was. I hope the Chief Minister is listening. We support this bill.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Health): Mr Deputy Speaker, I congratulate the Attorney-General for bringing this important legislation forward.
I take up on some of the comments made by the member for Fannie Bay. He talked about the way in which the Attorney-General went about a lengthy and thorough consultation process. It is very interesting he picked up on that because where the former Labor government went terribly wrong was that it took them the best part of 11 years to come up with legislation which attempted to cover the contents of this Advance Personal Planning Bill. They got so bogged down in consultation they took it to a whole new level – consultation, consultation, consultation, and they did not know when to cut it off.
I applaud the Attorney-General for taking just 15 months to come up with a bill which has included a thorough and considerable consultation process and have it before parliament for debate in such a short period of time. The former Labor government, in 11 years, did not even get to that final stage of getting it through parliament.
Once again, we are talking about a government that is about action and getting things done, going through the processes as thoroughly and comprehensively as we can, but getting it through parliament, which is where Labor came undone, particularly in the case of this suite of bills. They tried to put forward a bill called the Adult Personal Planning Bill, which did not get there because of their procrastination and inability to carry things through to fruition.
These bills aim to modernise legislation to allow adults to make decisions about their future needs should they lose the capacity to make their own decisions. It includes people of all ages, as the member for Fannie Bay mentioned. It is not just about elderly people; it is about sick, frail and disabled people who want to put their decisions on the public record. This is so that in the case of coming to a point in time when they cannot make their own decisions, they are very clearly laid out for their loved ones or the people they choose to nominate as their decision-makers.
These bills will establish clear principles to ensure decisions made on a person’s behalf are made in the adult’s best interests and comply with the wishes of that person – incredibly humane, caring and considerate of that person as a human being, and most dignifying.
These bills ensure Territorians will have their personal decisions valued, allowing them to be always at the heart of decision-making with matters relating to their future. The former Labor government could not get to this space. After 11 years in government, they were unable to come up with what is in place across most jurisdictions in Australia. In just 15 months, our bright, energetic, motivated Attorney-General came up with this legislation which should be passed very soon through this parliament. Once again, I sincerely applaud the hard work and competence of our Attorney-General.
These bills address three key matters once a person becomes incapable of making their own decisions. Firstly, an advance consent decision: an advance personal plan with direction about future health decisions made on a person’s behalf. This covers all healthcare including health services, emergency treatment and palliative care. Secondly, advance care statements: a statement outlining a person’s views, wishes and beliefs as the basis on which a person will make decisions on their behalf. Thirdly, decision-makers: decision-makers can be appointed to make decisions on a wide range of matters including property, financial affairs, health and other lifestyle matters.
This legislation will provide Territorians with a voice about their future life management decisions, providing similar rights to those existing in all other jurisdictions across Australia. The Northern Territory has dragged the chain, thanks to the former Labor government.
My parents, who both passed away just a few months ago, had similar provisions in place through the New South Wales system. It was most dignifying for them to know my sister and I could follow through with their wishes about how they wanted to be treated in the latter stages of their life and how they wanted their affairs managed. They knew my sister and I were capable and confident their wishes could be adhered to and respected. It is a most dignifying thing that should have been in place for many years.
It is a significant reform and one that took a change of government and, as I said, a passionate Attorney-General to implement.
Whilst recognising what this legislation will do and how it will benefit Territorians, it is also important to address issues outside the scope of these bills, namely the continuing arrangements under the Adult Guardianship Act. Adult guardianship gives someone the legal responsibility to make decisions for someone else over the age of 18 who is unable to make reasonable judgments or decisions about their daily living because of an intellectual disability. The Adult Guardianship Act outlines the processes for adults currently the subject of an adult guardianship order.
The Northern Territory government acknowledges the current system is in desperate need of modernisation, something the opposition again failed to achieve in 11 years. This is an outdated piece of legislation. It has been sitting there with very little genuine effort made to update it during the 11 years of Labor.
No system is perfect, but we understand the concerns expressed by participants and their families regarding the current processes. We understand that timing of decisions and the process can be improved. We would also like to see greater clarity and certainty in decision-making within the adult guardianship system. The Department of Health is developing options to improve the system. We are working on this now, and in 2014 this parliament will be deliberating over dramatic changes to this piece of legislation, this area of need that is currently managed by the Department of Health.
Time to consider how best to deliver improved adult guardianship arrangements in the Territory was required for two reasons. Firstly, this government is embarking on a significant reform of tribunals and administrative decision appeal mechanisms in the Northern Territory. The Attorney-General is currently exploring ways to ensure Territorians get quicker, easier and cheaper access to administrative decision reviews and tribunal determinations. This important reform will impact upon how we progress adult guardianship modernisation. It is important we take the time to fully consider how the two reforms complement each other to ensure we get it right.
Secondly, the introduction of the important Advance Personal Planning Bill and Advance Personal Planning (Consequential Amendments) Bill also impacts on the way the government modernises the Adult Guardianship Act. The model Labor failed to implement in its 11 years in office had both areas coming together. Given the changes to tribunals and the progression of this bill, I have sought advice from the Department of Health on how to best modernise the adult guardianship system. Once this advice is with government, and after we have conducted a short, sharp consultation to ensure the proposals are in accordance with the wishes of people under guardianship orders and their families, I am confident we will be able to say more about modernisation of the system in this place next year.
I applaud the Attorney-General for bringing forward this important reform. It will provide the opportunity for Territorians to make plans that cover off on important matters in the event they become mentally incapacitated. People in the Northern Territory have been waiting for this reform for a long time and I am sure we will hear feedback from across the Territory from these people. It means a lot to people to know they can put these provisions in place should they become mentally incapacitated through whatever means. I know the Attorney-General has consulted widely on these changes and they are warmly welcomed by stakeholders and the community. Similarly, I look forward to returning to this House in the new year and outlining the government’s plans to modernise the adult guardianship system in the Northern Territory.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I also support the advance planning bills before us. This plan will line up with similar legislation in other states, and it will clearly set out three important parts in the advance personal plan: advance consent decisions, the advance care statement and the appointment of one or more persons to make decisions for that person.
Advance care decisions relate to decisions around healthcare. The advance care statement will deal more with administrative type decisions, such as banking, property ownership, day-to-day living matters, etcetera. Decision-makers can be one or more adults who are competent and who the person trusts to make decisions when they are not able to. They can be appointed on any terms the person wants and can be general or specific. The bill sets out certain matters that cannot be included in the decision-making process: the power to vote, divorce, marriage and consent to adoption.
The bill sets out a description of what is not deemed to be impaired decision capacity, something that is a very important part of the basis of this bill. This allows for people who have a temporary or fluctuating impairment.
The bill sets out the role of the local court. There is no doubt that when dealing with matters such as advance planning there can be some emotion and delicate paths to tread when there are disputes or grey areas that need an independent decision-maker. It can make decisions about whether someone has impaired decision making or decide on the meaning of an advance personal care plan and a range of other things.
The Local Court has a range of other powers which, if appealed, can go to the Supreme Court. The bill also has compliance and enforcement provisions which are essential to make sure someone is not falsely representing to be a decision-maker or pressuring someone improperly to make a plan. That is also a very important part of this bill.
Divisions three and four are also very important. They deal with the role of healthcare providers, nurses and paramedics and the protections they need in carrying out their normal work. The care of people when their decision-making becomes impaired by accident or as one gets older through sickness means our healthcare providers have to make decisions that are not always easily legislated in an exact formula because we are dealing with many varied and personal circumstances. Though there may be personal plans such as ‘do not resuscitate’, those plans may sometimes be unknown, forgotten or, in an emergency, there may be no time to check; there needs to be legislation which covers these circumstances.
One of the more difficult areas is an advance directive refusing medical treatment; however, as mentioned in the second reading, the legal effect in the Northern Territory of such directives refusing medical treatment is not that clear. The second reading quotes a case in New South Wales and says Justice McDougall determined common law allows for a competent adult to make an advance directive refusing life sustaining treatment. I would like to highlight how difficult this area is to negotiate, and I will read two articles which, although long, are important in the context of the debate on the bill.
The first is a response I received from the Attorney-General’s department, and I thank members of the department for the briefing and the answer to the question I asked. I asked how food and water fit in with the definitions of treatment under the Advance Personal Planning Bill 2013. Does the bill provide for a situation like the child in the USA, whose parents refused artificial feeding and watering like the Quinlan matter? The answer was In Re Quinlan, 70 N.J. 10 (1976), a landmark 1975 court case in the United States in which the parents of a woman who was kept alive by artificial means were allowed to arrange for her removal from artificial ventilation. Karen Ann Quinlan was 21 years old in 1975. After a night of drinking alcohol and ingesting tranquilisers, Ms Quinlan passed out and ceased breathing for two 15-minute periods. After it was determined she was in a persistent vegetative state, her father wished to remove her from the artificial ventilator.
Ms Quinlan’s primary physician and the hospital both refused. Ms Quinlan’s father filed a suit in the Superior Court in Morris County, New Jersey on 12 September 1975 to be appointed as Ms Quinlan’s guardian so he could act on her behalf. The Court denied his request on 10 November 1975. Mr Quinlan then appealed the decision and the New Jersey Supreme Court, on 31 March 1976, held that he could authorise the cessation of ventilation and the hospital was bound to proceed with this order. After being removed from the ventilator, Ms Quinlan continued to breathe until her death several years later from pneumonia.
Assuming exactly the same factual situation has occurred as in the Quinlan case, advance personal planning would not apply. If that situation occurred in the NT, the parents would need to make an application to be appointed as guardians under the Adult Guardianship Act. However, if you assume the daughter had prepared an advance personal plan under clause eight of the bill and had appointed her father as a decision-maker in relation to any matters, the father would have authority to make the decision to remove artificial life support, including artificial nutrition and hydration procedures.
However, the father would be required to make the decision based on the decision-making principles in clause 22. The decision-making principles require the decision to be made in the way the decision-maker believes the adult would have done in the circumstances. Therefore, the father would have to consider whether his daughter would want to continue living on life support in a persistent vegetative state or to be taken off the life support machines and allowed to die naturally.
A third scenario is where the daughter may have made an advance consent decision in her advance personal plan, also under clause eight of the bill along the following terms, ‘If I suffer injury from trauma and am in a persistent vegetative state, I do not want to be given treatment to keep me alive, just keep me pain free and allow me to die naturally without artificial intervention’. That may constitute consent for a person in a persistent vegetative state to be given pain relief only and for any other treatment to be discontinued.
The question also seems to ask generally about how food and water fit within the definitions of treatment under the bill. Definitions relating to treatment in the Advance Personal Planning Bill are healthcare action and healthcare. In clause three, healthcare action is defined to mean commencing, continuing, withholding or withdrawing healthcare for an adult, and healthcare is defined to mean healthcare of any kind, including anything that is part of health service as defined in section five of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law. Section five of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law defines health service to include the following services whether provided as public or private services:
- (a) services provided by registered health practitioners
(b) hospital services
(c) mental health services
(d) pharmaceutical services
(e) ambulance services
(f) community health services
(g) health education services
(h) welfare services necessary to implement any services referred to in paragraphs (a) to (g)
(i) services provided by dieticians, masseurs, naturopaths, social workers, speech pathologists, audiologists or audiometrists, and
- (j) pathology services.
Artificial nutrition and hydration procedures would fall within the definition of health services – see section 5A and 5B of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law. According to the definition of healthcare action, these services may be withdrawn.
I raise that as it is an appropriate time to say these are difficult issues. I also have another long reading, but it is important not to shy away from some of these issues and to try to understand there are difficulties when people are very sick and dying. I quote from a book called Biomedical Ethics by Thomas A Mappes and David DeGrazia. Although it is a heavy book, it sheds light on the typical circumstances people have in relation to healthcare, especially when people are sick, dying, or in pain. People in healthcare have to make some very important decisions at times. I was going to read this article headed ‘Competent Adults and the Refusal of Life-Sustaining Treatment’. It says:
- Regarding the refusal of life-sustaining treatment by competent adults, there seem to be noteworthy differences among the following: (1) cases in which a patient, by accepting life-sustaining treatment, would return to a state of health; (2) cases in which a patient, by accepting life-sustaining treatment, would simply continue a severely compromised existence; and (3) cases in which a terminally-ill patient, by accepting life-sustaining treatment, would merely prolong the dying process.
Refusal of treatment in cases of the first type is relatively uncommon, but typically dramatic. The most discussed example involves a Jehovah’s Witness who refuses to accept a blood transfusion for religious reasons. It is widely acknowledged, at least in theory, that respect for individual autonomy requires recognition of the right of a competent adult Jehovah’s Witness to refuse a life-sustaining blood transfusion.
In conjunction with ongoing developments in the courts, refusal of treatment in cases of the second type is probably becoming increasingly common. By and large, the law now recognises the right of a competent adult – and not just one who is terminally ill or in the process of dying – to refuse life-sustaining treatment. Consider in this regard the example of a patient whose life is severely compromised by the presence of a painful and debilitating form of arthritis. This patient is coincidentally being treated for pneumonia and is temporarily dependent upon a respirator until the antibiotics have a chance to take effect. The pneumonia is entirely curable and the patient, however much compromised from a quality of life standpoint, is not in the process of dying. If the patient now decides to forgo the respirator, we cannot simply say that the patient has chosen not to prolong the dying process. Accordingly, although considerations of individual autonomy provide a strong moral warrant for the right to refuse life-sustaining treatment in general, some commentators would take issue with the right to refuse treatment in this kind of case because they are concerned about the implications of accepting quality-of-life considerations. It can also be argued that the refusal of life-sustaining treatment in this kind of case is tantamount to suicide, an approach taken by Vicki Michel in one of the chapter’s readings.
I took note of that, minister.
- Michel’s discussion is also notable for its presentation of a disability-rights perspective on the issues at stake.
In another reading in this chapter, Tia Powell and Bruce Lowenstein focus attention on the case of a chronically disabled woman who chose to refuse life-sustaining treatment. The patient, who suffered a brain-stem stroke at the age of 37, remained mentally alert but was rendered quadriplegic and unable to speak. As described by Powell and Lowenstein, much of the ethical tension in the case can be traced to the fact that staff members working with the patient in a rehabilitation facility felt that she had decided too rapidly that she could not adjust to a life with serious disability.
Refusal of treatment in cases of the third type has a strong foundation in both morality and law and is certainly common. In many cases of terminal illness, ‘aggressive’ treatment is capable of warding off death – for a time. However, it is often questionable whether such treatment is in a patient’s best interest, and a competent adult is generally considered to have both a moral and a legal right to refuse treatment which would merely prolong the dying process.
Depending upon a patient’s circumstances, life-sustaining treatment can take a variety of forms – for example, mechanical respiration, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, kidney dialysis, surgery, antibiotics, and artificial nutrition and hydration. It is sometimes claimed that the provision of food and water is so fundamentally different from other forms of life-sustaining treatment that it may never be omitted. Those who systematically oppose withholding nutrition and hydration often call attention to the symbolic significance of food and water – their intimate connection with notions of care and concern. However, most commentators insist that there is no reason to apply a different standard to artificial nutrition and hydration. In their view, artificial nutrition and hydration – just like other life-sustaining treatments – will sometimes fail to offer a patient a nett benefit, and the decision of a competent patient to refuse them must be respected.
In one of the selections in this chapter, the AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs acknowledges and endorses the right of competent patients to forgo life-sustaining treatment. The council explicitly argues against the view that it is never permissible to forgo artificial nutrition and hydration. One other issue discussed by the council is noteworthy. Although it is clear that medical decision-making is sometimes influenced by the fact that many physicians are more comfortable with withholding a life-sustaining treatment to begin with, rather than withdrawing it once it has been initiated, the council insists that there is no ethically significant distinction between withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment.
I know that is long but – although we are talking about a system where people have to deal with issues when their mental state is impaired – there are issues this bill does cover which are very important. I thought I would highlight that. I do, from a personal position, still struggle with the idea that one can withdraw food and water. I can understand we have the Natural Death Act and we can withdraw, for example, artificial support. Is the provision of food and water artificial? Some would say, ‘Well, if it is given artificially then it is perhaps an extraordinary means of keeping someone alive’. However, if someone has two broken arms, someone will have to feed them or food will have to be tubed in if they have other problems with being able to eat. This can happen with someone who has been in a severe car accident.
That is an area I touch on in this debate. I am not asking the government to give me its version of where the NT would stand with this, but it is certainly an area that needs to be looked at to see where, as a jurisdiction, we stand on that matter. Having looked at this book and looking at the thickness of it, it is an eye-opener for me as to what people in the medical profession have to deal with. This is especially the case in circumstances around end of life or when people are in, for example, a vegetative state or cannot help themselves.
Those articles highlight the complexities of the matter and especially relate to medical treatment and the removal of medical treatment. This bill is not about euthanasia, something I do not support, but that does not mean we can shy away from these complex issues which deal with life and death matters. There are times when we should debate and study these issues because they are complex. It also highlights what doctors, nurses, paramedics, palliative care workers and other care providers have to deal with in their everyday lives, and it may be in some cases a court will decide that.
I thank the minister and his department for the work they have done, especially in the public consultation. I attended the public consultation at Palmerston and I thank the member for Drysdale, as she helped organise that and I appreciate it; it was a good day and I thank the minister for coming. I will be a little cynical – it is not meant to be brutal – but there was consultation. We have a couple of bills coming before the House – I am not saying they had to go as long as this one, as this was a fairly long process, but it was important that people had a chance to put their points of view directly to the minister. I think people appreciated the minister being there because you are dealing with a piece of law that can be fairly complex.
I have issues with some of the terminology in here. When I had my briefing, they said there may be a brochure coming out that speaks in slightly non-legal terms. This is because ‘advance care’ and ‘advance plans’, ‘advance this’ and ‘advance that’ sometimes confuses people as to what we are talking about. I understand from my briefing the government will be bringing out some clarification so people understand what is happening.
I think there are many people in the Northern Territory who appreciate that this bill has come forward at last. Our past Speaker, Loraine Braham, has contacted me a number of times over the last couple of years asking when this was going to happen, and I take the point from the member for Araluen, as I believe she was also trying to hurry up the previous government. It is not an excuse for no consultation but I agree it sometimes gets put into the too hard basket and does not see the light of day. At least this has now seen the light of day.
I thank the minister for the consultation and the chance for the briefing. I especially thank the staff for giving me that legal advice on the question, which was an important question to ask, and I support this bill.
Ms FINOCCHIARO (Drysdale): Mr Deputy Speaker, I too support the Attorney-General’s Advance Personal Planning Bill.
For too long, the Northern Territory has been a mixed jurisdiction when it comes to the law of decision-making capacity and future decision directives. Our jurisdiction is currently a confusing mix of adult guardianship, powers of attorney, trust estates and the common law. This Advance Personal Planning Bill is the realisation of a firm commitment made by the member for Port Darwin some time ago. It then became an election commitment for this government when in opposition.
It is easy to consume debate with headline matters like law and order, education and major projects. However, there are many Territorians anxious to have their wishes clearly communicated to those who will make decisions for them once they are unable to. Sadly for some, that is an imminent reality. Equally, this bill can and should be used by anyone, young or old, and I will detail the reasoning behind this shortly.
I thank the Attorney-General for giving priority to this unsexy but important matter with this bill and the consequential bill. This bill achieves a number of key reforms to the law in the Northern Territory. First, it enshrines the capacity for a person to make a consent decision for future healthcare action. This is very important. Blood transfusions, skin grafts, the administering of certain drugs or remedies, CPR and other medical care decisions can all be made in one clear, written plan which will be followed in the appropriate circumstances by medical personnel when a person loses their decision-making capacity.
I personally support legislative confirmation of my right should I care to exercise it; for example, not to be placed on life support in the event of an accident or injury that left me in a sustained vegetative state. I am also pleased to know that our hard-working, diligent, committed and often brave medical personnel are completely protected by the legislation. When they come across a person in need, they are expected to perform their primary role, which is preservation of life, and will be completely protected in the event that such action, when performed in good faith, is inconsistent with a consent decision.
Practically, paramedics attending a serious accident, or a doctor on an aeroplane, when coming upon a person in need of urgent medical care, cannot be expected to inquire as to the existence of a consent decision. Having made that point, however, many jurisdictions overseas and some in Australia are coming up with innovative means for people to make sure their medical wishes are known, even in emergency situations. For example, in the Colchester Emergency Service in the UK, they had so many call outs to elderly people who were unable to tell them what was wrong or what they wanted, they came up with a ‘file for life’ which was offered to all seniors.
The ‘file for life’ is attached by a magnet to a person’s refrigerator and contains vital information on their medical conditions, such as a heart problem or diabetes, as well as details about the medications a person is taking, an emergency contact and doctor. Additionally, and importantly for our legislative direction with these bills, if the person has a ‘do not resuscitate’ order, that will be noted in the file and at the person’s preferred hospital. Seniors are also issued a smaller copy of the information for their wallet. These are good ideas and we will watch how they go.
I know the national roll out of e-Health has the potential to create an easily accessible record of a person’s consent decision connected to every hospital and health centre in the country. Only time will tell whether or not e-Health’s potential is realised. For the purpose of this legislation at least, I hope it is.
It must be stressed this legislation does not provide or legalise euthanasia. That is made clear in the bill and was a topic at the public consultation I facilitated in Palmerston. The debate about the merits or otherwise of euthanasia is for another day.
In addition to consent decisions, the bills allow a person to make an advance care statement. These statements incorporate many of the aspects of the adult guardianship and powers of attorney frameworks currently in place. These statements can cover all manner of wishes, including financial, residential and medical. A statement should be made on an approved form, and I understand the recommendation will be that people place their wishes in a register to be established by the Department of the Attorney-General. Some matters, such as those relating to directions for dealing with property, must be registered to have effect. Other wishes are fine unregistered so long as someone knows they exist.
Consequential to a person making a statement of their wishes is the need for someone to be appointed to carry out those wishes. Under this proposed legislation, that can be one person or many, and I like this flexibility. Indeed, a person may appoint decision-makers according to their skill or relationship and there can be multiple people appointed to one category, either concurrently or in order of succession. For example, I am able to appoint my fianc to be my decision-maker regarding medical matters and also appoint my sister to the role in the event my fianc is unable or unwilling to perform the role. I could appoint an accountant or more distant relative with financial experience to manage my money, although there would not be much of it. If I had children, I could appoint my best friend as the decision-maker with regard to their education and future financial support should my partner also become incapacitated. A decision-maker must be 18 or older and must be capable of performing the role.
The point of all of this is the system is very flexible; I believe flexibility and ease of access is key to uptake. I would be unlikely to go through huge amounts of paperwork and timely processes, but the current system will avoid this. Therefore, I fully intend on making an advance personal plan – coming out of the Palmerston consultation was a need for simplicity in the form, simplicity in access, and understanding of it was a key point raised by my constituents. Where there is a dispute about a plan, either amongst decision-makers or regarding the plan, this will currently be determined by a court. I believe the proposed Administrative Appeals Tribunal may offer another means of resolution which is timelier and, hopefully, less costly. I encourage the Attorney-General to explore this when thinking about the tribunal structure.
Earlier this year, public information sessions were held around the Northern Territory, and I am pleased to report the Palmerston community consultation I helped facilitate was held at Gray Community Hall on Tuesday 9 July and attracted many interested people. I thank the Attorney-General and his team who attended the Palmerston community consultation and were extremely helpful to my constituents and continue to be extremely helpful in the whole process. I also note the member for Nelson attended my consultation and hope he enjoyed the lovely Gray Community Hall in my electorate, which is one of my favourite places to hang out during the week. It was very nice to see him in my electorate in a capacity other than football referee. He was wearing longer shorts, which is always good.
I have a very conscientious constituent, Anne Brown, who helps coordinate the Palmerston 50+ Club. At her request, I arranged a personal briefing for Anne with the Department of Attorney-General and Justice prior to the public consultation. Anne meets widely with members of our community and not only acts as a voluntary information source to others, she also advocates on behalf of those who do not necessarily wish to do it themselves. I am proud of Anne and what she does for our community, and am proud her long list of concerns was heard and noted by the department. I believe Anne’s feedback, as well as other feedback from the Palmerston consultation, has had a positive impact on operational aspects of this bill.
Ken Cohalan from Palmerston Probus was also very interested in our government’s plan to implement the Advance Personal Planning Bill. His comments and observations have made their way into the department’s considerations, and for that I am grateful. I spend a lot of time with seniors in Palmerston. They are a bright and vibrant part of our city’s social fabric. They are a proud group of people who have a keen interest in this government initiative as it helps them to feel prepared for whatever their life may throw at them.
Equally, young Territorians are not immune to life’s challenges. Whilst it is a horrible thought, anyone can lose their capacity at any time and we must all be conscious of that. In the words of the famous American athlete Jackie Joyner-Kersee:
- It’s better to look ahead and prepare than to look back and regret
This is what these bills will allow Territorians to do.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Attorney-General and I commend the bills to the House.
Mr STYLES (Senior Territorians): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Attorney-General for the opportunity to add to this debate. It is a great pleasure to support the Attorney-General on this bill.
I attended a number of the consultations in the community. The level of consulting – I agree with my colleagues who have spoken on this – was outstanding. There had been a lot of angst in the community about the previous Labor government’s legislation and people were onto me, as minister for Seniors, and the Attorney-General to do something. I congratulate the Attorney-General on the fantastic job he has done. Many people are extremely happy with what has been progressed.
It took a little time, but when I explained what was happening, people were grateful we took the time to consult and got it right. In the future, if there is any tweaking to be done, it will be. Congratulations, once again, for doing a great job and not crumbling under the pressure to get this out in record time.
We treasure our senior Territorians, not only for the contribution they have made to the Territory in the past, but for the contribution they keep making. Whether it is imparting wisdom to our younger generation, volunteering to put on great events like Seniors Month, or just being part of our vibrant community, their place is an important one. To quote my mother when I was growing up, she always said to me, ‘Look after the old folks because they once looked after you’.
However, this does not just affect older people in our community; it affects young people as well. Sadly, some young people who do not get the opportunity to lead what we call a full life, who may have debilitating diseases or health issues, or an acquired injury that will cause them to deteriorate in a short or long period of time, need to have the peace of mind this bill brings.
If we do not do this, it would put the Territory out of step with the rest of the states and territories. It would also deprive people of the freedom to make important decisions while they are able. Why is this important? Why do we need an Advance Personal Planning Bill? Are there no other mechanisms to allow for this kind of decision-making? The answer is not really.
This government identified the gap in the legislation the previous government brought in, and we seek to put these questions beyond all doubt. We believe it is the right of every Territorian to make an advance personal plan. It is not something people necessarily think about often but, as we see tragedies play out in our society all the time, we also get a sense that it is prudent to give Territorians a choice. Of course, everyone hopes such an advance personal plan will never be needed. Like insurance, it is something you never want to call on, but you are reassured if you have to. Advance personal plans provide reassurance for loved ones and family.
Inside the Speaker’s office is the Remonstrance. This is a document that every member then serving in this House signed after the Commonwealth parliament overturned a Territory law relating to euthanasia. It called upon the Commonwealth parliament to respect the rights of the Northern Territory parliament to make laws for the people of the Northern Territory. Those laws were an example of the Northern Territory leading the way in giving options to those in our society who have to face a cold, stark choice – a choice none of us in this Chamber or society want to have to face.
However, there are some in our community who will demonstrate enormous courage and face up to that choice day in and day out. It behoves us in this place to ensure people can plan ahead, that people can give thought to their future and make decisions about the future now.
I will go into the detail of the bill for a moment. The advance personal plan is the vehicle under the bill which will allow a person with the relevant planning capacity to provide for their future. An advance personal plan will be able to contain one or all of the three following elements: advance consent decisions, commonly referred to as advance health directives; advance care statements; or the appointment of one or more persons to make decisions for the person. Advance consent decisions are legally binding documents for the making of decisions relating to future healthcare. For example, a person may make an advance consent decision, refusing to have certain treatments such as blood transfusions, chemotherapy, radiation or antibiotics.
An advance consent decision has effect if a person makes the decision at the time it is proposed to take the healthcare action; a person may make multiple advance consent decisions. Advance consent decisions are also able to be made by an appointed decision-maker or guardian. However, there are limits to a decision a guardian can make for a patient. These advance care decision provisions will give Territorians the ability to plan ahead and take control of the future in any medical issues they may face, another element of an advance personal plan for advance care statements. These are statements setting out the adult’s views, wishes and beliefs in relation to treatment. A good example is someone making a decision about any possible treatment based on religious beliefs. These statements will be a good indicator of a person’s wishes, both in the absence of an appointed decision-maker and where a person has been appointed to make decisions for someone. The final plank of the new law relates to the appointment of decision-makers.
Under the Advance Personal Planning Bill, a person can be appointed as a decision-maker in order to make decisions on a wide variety of matters, including financial, health, property and family matters. A person is able to appoint a number of people to be decision-makers. These people can have expertise in various areas. For example, an accountant can be appointed to manage financial affairs. This part of the bill provides a great degree of certainty to Territorians that their wishes and directions will be followed if they lose the capacity to make decisions themselves. That is the main purpose of this bill: to provide choice for Territorians and enable them to plan for their medical and related care if they choose to.
The Country Liberals government is fundamentally about ‘getting out of the way’ and allowing Territorians to make their own decisions and choices in life. As I moved around the Territory talking to seniors and other interested people, one of the main concerns of seniors was this bill and the issues contained in it. They said one of their great concerns is about – and especially as people are advancing in years – making plans for their treatment and what will happen to them, but they want to be very much a part of that decision-making process. I applaud the Attorney-General for doing this for all the people who are seniors, who are suffering Alzheimer’s or for those caring for young people who, for some reason, cannot make these decisions for themselves. I thank the Attorney-General for bringing this to parliament in such a fine state. I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Mr Deputy Speaker, sometimes you have a nice day at the office and this is a nice day at the office. It is a nice day for a number of reasons but I confess this idea is not mine, as much as I would like to hang it as the John Elferink legacy for my time in parliament. The idea was brought to me by a number of members of the Country Liberals. I particularly acknowledge Ross Connolly, in his approach, who is now the party president and thank him for his endeavours. He pushed it through as a motion on the floor of our Central Council and I brought it into the House when we were still in opposition. People who are not associated with the Country Liberals were also interested in this space and I would like to thank Hon Austin Asche, but, in particular, Hugh and Sue Bradley, as well as Alzheimer’s in the Northern Territory and a number of other organisations that helped give this thing legs and momentum, even in the time of opposition.
The bill I introduced in opposition is fundamentally different to this bill and I am grateful, when that was defeated in opposition, I was able to bring it back when in government and go through a consultation process that was a lot broader. I have to thank the literally hundreds of Territorians who turned up to these consultations for their input. I was genuinely surprised and I heard the Minister for Infrastructure make the comment about the amount of interest this bill has generated.
There is enormous interest in this legislation in the community, and when I spoke to COTA – I also thank Robyn Lesley from COTA for her input into this – I was surprised not only by the number of people who were interested but the depth of interest. It became clear to me during the consultation process that we had to be very careful about how we preceded with this legislation. This was because there is a lot of buy-in into this space and, as a good Liberal, I genuinely believe this is about giving people control and power over their own lives. That is what this bill captures, along with its subsequent and consequential amendments. I apologise to those people who believed at the outset we were going to do this by April - I almost got it in in April. I think the original bill came in in June but it is more important to get it right and take a little time than it is to push against your own artificial timetables.
In any instance, I note the comments from all members; I am grateful. I thank the member for Nelson for putting the amount of effort and thinking into this that he has. He is clearly a man who is concerned about one component of this but understands the overall thrust of the bill. He has taken the time and care to express his opinions in a clear way in this House, and I am grateful to him for that. I am also, of course, grateful to the opposition for their support, but I think they too would have realised that in the community there is a high level of expectation this would happen.
I have circulated a couple of minor amendments. I have spoken to the opposition and we do have to go into the committee stages. There is not much more I can say about this other than to thank everybody for their care and interest, including the many Territorians who turned up for the public consultations; I hope this bill serves you well. I pick up on what the Minister for Health had to say about the future of adult guardianship and I look forward to endeavours in that space as well. Without further ado, I will sit down and let the processes of this House move on.
Motion agreed to; bills read a second time.
In committee:
Mr CHAIR: The committee has before it the Advance Personal Planning Bill (Serial 41) together with the Schedule of Amendments No. 10 circulated by the Attorney-General, and the Advance Personal Planning (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013 (Serial 54). The bills will be considered sequentially.
Clauses 1 to 22:
Mr WOOD: During the briefing, Attorney-General, I asked – I had some advice from a lawyer in relation to this – whether the objectives of this act could be included in Part 1. These presently appear between the number of the act and Part 1 of the act. The advice I received is if you put that objective within the act – I have seen a number of bills where that does take place – the technical reason for that is the purposive approach, the statutory interpretation, is assisted by having that within the content of the bill rather than at the top of the bill. I did raise it at the briefing.
Mr ELFERINK: You are surprising me at the last moment, Mr Wood.
Mr WOOD: Sorry.
Mr ELFERINK: I will read this out. It is in my briefing notes, and the answer is basically this: an objects clause is where the bill contains a statement of the purpose of the act. In Australia, it is now generally accepted that, in most cases, the appropriate place to set out the background and political aims of an act is in the second reading speech and explanatory statement. The practice in all Australian jurisdictions, except Victoria, is to have a long title which sets out the scope of the act. Victoria and New Zealand have dispensed with long titles and use purposes and objectives clauses instead.
The current practice in the Northern Territory is that objects clauses are not included as a matter of course but can be included if doing so serves some useful purpose. For example, in very complex legislation, an overview or explanation of the act might be helpful to assist the reader in understanding the act. For example, the Commonwealth Income Tax Assessment Act has such provisions, not just for the act as a whole, but for each division, which is undoubtedly useful.
The reason for not providing an objects clause in the Advance Personal Planning Bill is it would not have served any useful purpose. The purpose of the bill is clear from the whole act and having regard to specific sections.
I hope that helps you, member for Nelson. If not, if you could convince me to bring back an amendment at a later time, I would hear you on such a matter.
Clauses 1 to 22, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 23.
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chair, I move that in clause 23(1)(b), we omit the reference to section 22(3) and insert the words ‘section 22(4)’.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Mr CHAIR: I turn to the Advance Personal Planning (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013. The committee has before it the Advance Personal Planning (Consequential Amendments) Bill, Serial 54, together with the Schedule of Amendments No 12 circulated by the Attorney-General.
Clauses 1 to 140, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Schedule of Amendments No 12:
Mr ELFERINK: Mr Chair, this is a straightforward typo that has been fixed. I move that from the schedule we omit the words ‘power of attorney’ and insert the words ‘powers of attorney’, therefore turning a singular into a plural.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bills reported with amendments; report adopted.
Mr ELFERINK (Attorney-General and Justice): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bills read a third time.
TABLED PAPER
Revocation of Guidelines of the Public Information Act
Revocation of Guidelines of the Public Information Act
Mr ELFERINK (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, whilst there is no question before the House - my apologies to the leader of opposition business - the Chief Minister has asked me, on his behalf, to read a short tabling statement in relation to revocation of guidelines of the Public Information Act.
Madam Speaker, I lay on the table the revocation of guidelines for the Public Information Act.
Honourable members would be aware the Public Information Act commenced on 1 August 2010. The act provides for the review of public information, being certain types of information given by a public authority to the public by using money or other property of the Territory. The act also permits the making of guidelines for matters to be taken into account by the Auditor-General when reviewing particular public information and making determinations under the act.
A notice for the making of public information guidelines was signed on 14 July 2010 by the then Chief Minister and published in Gazette No G31 of 4 August 2010. As far as we can now tell, those guidelines were made without the benefit of legal advice.
We have now received advice from the Solicitor-General that many of the guidelines are invalid as they impose constraints beyond what is permissible under the act.
The purpose of the Solicitor-General’s advice is the guidelines are a statutory instrument which is subordinate to the act. Subordinate instruments are limited in their scope by the provisions of the principle legislation and cannot validly purport to create additional contraventions. Furthermore, the Solicitor-General has advised the guidelines cannot lawfully compel any public authority to seek compliance advice and the public authorities are not bound by such advice.
Parliamentary Counsel agrees with the Solicitor-General’s opinion. Accordingly, the Chief Minister has decided to revoke the guidelines. The Chief Minister signed an instrument of revocation on the guidelines on 14 November 2013 which was notified in the government Gazette on 26 November 2013.
I now, on behalf of the Chief Minister, table a copy of the instrument in this House.
The Solicitor-General has also advised that the Public Information Act does not require guidelines to be in place for the operation of the act, and we do not intend to make new ones. They are unnecessary and simply add a layer of bureaucracy for no good purpose. In our view, the Auditor-General is perfectly capable of doing his job under the legislation without directions from a minister.
The Chief Minister and I can assure you, and our colleagues, this action will not have an impact on public authorities and the compliance within the act relating to content and information provided to the public. There will be no change to the Public Information Act.
The committee nominated by the Chief Executive Officer of the Department of the Chief Minister will continue to provide guidance to agencies regarding compliance with the Public Information Act.
I seek leave, on behalf of the Chief Minister, to continue his remarks at a later date.
Leave granted.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Challenging Convention - Shaping the Future of Education in Northern Territory
Challenging Convention - Shaping the Future of Education in Northern Territory
Mr CHANDLER (Education): Madam Speaker, quality education is the key to positive participation of Territorians in our community and our economy. It is the vehicle which drives social and economic advancement. An extract from a recent paper published by the Melbourne Institute sums this up very well:
- There is mounting evidence that what students actually know – as measured by international standardised tests – is important for economic growth and that relatively small improvements in cognitive skill levels can translate into substantial improvements in a population’s future wellbeing … thus, getting it right can matter a great deal.
This government is absolutely focused on getting it right. We are intent on discovering what works and targeting our spending towards improved outcomes. The Northern Territory sits in stark contrast to every other jurisdiction in Australia when it comes to education outcomes. We are at the bottom of the pile and have been for decades.
We will not experience the level of improvement which is demanded of us if we continue to deliver education in the same way we always have. We must challenge the conventions that have led us to this place and plot a new way forward based on proven practices that deliver results.
When we took government a little over a year ago, we were daunted by the knowledge there had been no significant improvement in students’ national testing results across reading and numeracy for five years. This is despite the Northern Territory recording, by far, the worst results of any Australian state or territory year after year; no improvement had been made.
Even more surprising was that the investment of both Territory and federal governments in education had increased significantly over the same period. Over the previous five years to 2012, education staff had increased by 790, or 20%, from 3857 full time equivalent staff in 2007-08 to 4647 staff in 2011-12.
At the same time, the government Education budget had increased by over 46%, from $467m per annum to $683m per annum. Interestingly, these increases in staff and funding were not matched by a similar increase in enrolments; the number of students in our schools increased by only 173 students over the same period.
This dramatic and unprecedented increase in spending had failed to achieve any real improvements. These efforts, well intentioned and popular as they may have been, have not yielded positive results for our children. This phenomenon is not unique to the Northern Territory, as outlined by Justine Ferrari in the Weekend Australian last month. In this article, she wrote:
- An analysis of school funding shows that it has doubled in real terms since 1995, to about $40bn a year, yet students’ results in international and national literacy and numeracy tests have flatlined or fallen in that time.
She went on to write:
One of the nation’s leading education researchers and advisers to government, Geoff Masters, who heads the Australian Council for Educational Research, said Australia had to focus resources on initiatives that had been proven to work.
Simply spending the money won’t achieve the outcomes; it’s is a question of how the money is spent.
He then went on to say:
- We can’t keep spending the way we have been and doing the same things over and over and expecting things to change.
I believe I have made a similar statement here.
Geoff Masters’ comments were also supported by Ben Jensen, Director of the School Education Program at the Grattan Institute:
- … the figures showed Australia ‘had a host of bad policies that are ineffective, and we keep spending money on them year after year.
Clearly, we need a sharp break from where we’ve spent money in the past but, unfortunately, too many in Australian education appear unwilling to acknowledge the evidence and make that break’.
I will not be grouped under the heading of people unwilling to acknowledge the evidence and make the necessary changes. It is time to take stock of the direction of school education in the Northern Territory and challenge the simple-minded and false conventions that equate more money with better outcomes.
This government will shift education policy in the Northern Territory, and this shift will require change. To this end, we have, so far, commissioned a review into Indigenous education to determine a more responsible and effective approach to addressing Indigenous student outcomes and increased support for the early years of learning and development that are so important as the foundation of each person’s future life chances. We have commenced a review into teacher/student ratios in the middle and senior years; established the community driven school initiative; established the literacy and numeracy expert panel to inform practices to improve literacy and numeracy outcomes; and established the behaviour management task force to assist schools to manage the escalation of poor behaviour that has disrupted teaching and learning for too many students and teachers for far too long.
The government has also commenced rebuilding the relationship with the non-government schooling sector, recognising the importance of this sector in providing choice to parents, and has commenced establishing a state of the art distance education facility that can ensure that children across the Northern Territory, wherever they live, can access high-quality education services delivered through the latest technologies.
About the Indigenous education review: education outcomes across the Northern Territory are worst amongst our Indigenous students, and that is shameful. This has been our greatest failure to date and it is here we require the greatest improvement. It is for this reason we have commissioned a comprehensive review of Indigenous education in the Northern Territory, because if we ever needed a greater understanding of what is working and what is not, it is with regard to delivering education for Indigenous students. It is interesting to note the last significant review conducted into Indigenous education in the Northern Territory produced a report called Learning Lessons. The review was commissioned in late 1998 with the report published late in 1999. It was comprehensive and constructive in charting a way forward with a clear focus on improved outcomes. The great shame was there was a change of government not long after that report, and it sat on the shelf collecting dust for the next decade. This was a decade of ad hoc spending along with general lack of critical analysis about the successes and failures of Indigenous education in the Northern Territory.
It is time for us to take stock of what has worked and what has not, to ask the important questions about where we should now best focus our resources. In consultation with educators, partnership bodies and Indigenous communities, the review is assessing what is working and what is not in improving student attendance, engagement and, of course, the important outcomes; determining the best use of the significant resources that have been and continue to be invested; providing an understanding of how parents and families are engaged in the process and informed on education standards, attendance and achievements; looking at current and future demographic trends in the Indigenous student population; evaluating how the department can better support Indigenous education; and looking at the partnership arrangements, the opportunities that exist and how to empower local communities.
This is an important review, and it is being conducted in consultation with educators, stakeholders and the community. Bruce Wilson, a respected independent consultant, has been appointed to lead the review. Bruce has more than 30 years of experience in education, specialising in curriculum policy and development, and has specific knowledge of the Northern Territory, having undertaken previous extensive work with the department on curriculum and schooling models. This report, its recommendations and findings will be submitted to government for consideration in the first quarter of 2014. The review will drive a more strategic approach to Indigenous education service delivery, including negotiating funding with the Australian government that is aligned to a strategic and evidence-based plan to improve outcomes for Indigenous children and students. I am looking forward to receiving that report and note, with interest, some of the issues Bruce has already flagged, including how best to deliver secondary education in a remote context and where improved attendance will have its strongest effects.
Moving to the new investment in early childhood education; the Northern Territory has been investing in early childhood education, and recent results indicate this investment may be starting to pay early modest dividends. The Australian Early Development Index measures how well prepared children are for school by the age of five. There have been significant improvements in the Territory’s Australian Early Development Index results, particularly for Indigenous children. However, according to this measure, our levels of developmental vulnerability remain the highest across the nation. Our NAPLAN results also show improvements for children in the early years; however, while these are encouraging early signs, there is more work to do, and investment in this area will enhance the early learning services and support available to children and parents across the Territory.
Early childhood classes will be boosted by 63 teachers in 2014, creating additional teaching positions in Transition, Year 1 and Year 2. These teachers will support students in their early stages of education and ensure they are provided with a strong foundation for their future learning and engagement with schooling.
This government has initiated a $150 000 annual fund that is distributed to long-day care centres for the purchase of toys and equipment to assist them deliver quality and educationally based early learning programs for children in their care. All 72 long-day care services in the Territory, which support children in some 3200 full-time places, have benefited from this program this year.
Moving to the literacy and numeracy expert panel; for too many years, the literacy and numeracy outcomes for too many young Territorians have been too low. The literacy and numeracy expert panel, led by numeracy expert, Professor Peter Sullivan, is reviewing current literacy and numeracy policy and practice. In December this year, the panel will make recommendations to the government on how and where we need to focus our efforts to improve not only our NAPLAN results, but also literacy and numeracy skills across all stages of schooling and in all subject areas.
A behaviour management task force has been established to provide advice about managing inappropriate and antisocial behaviour in schools including bullying, assault, verbal abuse, indecent behaviour, dangerous acts, weapons, property offences and substance abuse. The task force includes school principals as well as representatives from Northern Territory Council of Government School Organisations, Northern Territory Health, the Association of Northern Territory School Education Leaders, the Australian Education Union Northern Territory and clinical psychologist, Mr Andrew Fuller. Advice from this group will assist the Department of Education to respond to critical behaviour incidents, suspension actions, extreme behaviour support and data collection and reporting, and will inform changes to the Education Act to implement new behaviour management strategies. It is imperative students and teachers feel safe and supported at school.
I move to the Northern Territory Open Education Centre, something I am extremely excited about. The exciting Northern Territory Open Education Centre facilities are not designed to provide the level of technical capability needed to continue to expand this very important service into the future. Over 550 students access this service annually, 40% to 50% of whom are Indigenous. It is important we provide a service which targets the needs of all students. The Northern Territory government has secured private investment to contribute to the development of a state-of-the-art new open education centre to be located at Darwin High School. The total cost of the new initiative will be in excess of $14m and will benefit from a generous contribution of $3m from INPEX. It will be equipped with cutting-edge distance learning technologies and virtual classrooms. This service will provide high quality and comprehensive learning programs to a diverse range of students, no matter where they live. In time, the plans for the new distance education service will include outreach into Asia.
Moving to Vocational Education and Training; we will develop employment pathways for young people in key industry areas that contribute to economic development in our region. I have often remarked that the ultimate employment outcome is a job, and one fantastic pathway to a job is through vocational education and training. There are substantial opportunities in areas such as rural industry, as well as the mining and energy industries, and we need to ensure our students are work ready and able to take on these roles now and into the future.
At the moment, many pastoral properties employ gap year workers. Agricultural and horticultural industries use backpackers for seasonal work. In the mining industry, we recruit from interstate and overseas; at the same time, we have students in regional and remote areas without a pathway to employment and much of this work is located in the areas in which our students live.
We need to provide students with the skills and training to take advantage of the employment opportunities available in their region. We will work in partnership with industry and communities to support this through such initiatives as the NT schools Indigenous rural workers project and the mining pathways project. Students will be introduced to a wide range of skills that match employment opportunities relevant to industries in the areas in which they live.
Contextualised literacy and numeracy programs and vocational education and training studies will provide students an insight into the area of work that attracts them and assists them to gain an understanding of what employers expect. In situ work placements will provide real training with real employers to ensure students gain the greatest opportunity to transition into real jobs and real futures in the Northern Territory. The work will continue to be expanded to cover areas such as tourism and community services over the coming years.
Our new federal government supports education in the Northern Territory. I am looking forward to a constructive working relationship with the new Abbott-led federal government. Having recently met with Christopher Pyne, in his new role as Education minister, I was encouraged by his willingness to support greater autonomy for the Northern Territory in delivering education. He gave an explicit acknowledgement that it is the Northern Territory that is best placed to determine and deliver schooling.
It was also heartening to hear Minister Pyne speak about his enthusiasm for independent public schools and for greater autonomy in allowing schools to allocate their own budgets. This matches our own efforts in working with communities to develop new approaches to provisioning schools under the new school autonomy arrangements. One-hundred-and-fifty-four government schools will be empowered to make local level decisions about staffing and financial resources through one line budget allocations from 2015.
Schools will be provided with greater opportunities to customise their services to meet the different needs of families and communities across the Territory. This increased autonomy will be balanced by consistent and system-wide effort and accountability to ensure we continue to build on the quality of our schools through a strong and transparent improvement agenda.
I quote from the recent working paper of the Melbourne Institute, titled Educational Achievement and the Allocation of School Resources:
- It seems likely that institutional design and resource management will continue to factor heavily into the ongoing debate about educational reform. Policy makers are taking interest in evidence that – in well-developed educational systems with appropriate accountability – school autonomy can be linked to better outcomes…
… these results lend weight to calls for educational reforms which provide incentives for decision makers – in our case school principals – to manage their resources well…
In order to successfully transition to these new arrangements, several communities and non-government service providers have already expressed interest in exploring these new governance arrangements. We are committed to increasing the involvement of non-government, private and community based organisations in delivering education infrastructure and schooling services to ensure we have a high performing, diverse and competitive education system that provides choice for parents and their communities.
This is consistent with the new federal government’s policy position on school autonomy and independent public schools. Early initiatives of this government have addressed our immediate concern with increasing the focus on early years, addressing Indigenous student outcomes, moving to contemporise distance education and addressing safety and wellbeing issues in our schools. We are strengthening our regional presence to drive better outcomes and create stronger ties between schools to ensure all children have access to quality education and training, and clear pathways to employment, further education or training.
Over 60% of our schools are located outside the greater Darwin area, and while a shift has been made in recent years towards a regional model of service delivery, we are only part way there. Many of our school support services are still provided from a central base. We intend to shift this practice because decisions are best made and resources have the most impact when they are determined closest to the point of service delivery in schools. Flexible and innovative options for service delivery such as online learning platforms and teacher support resources for remote students will be key to delivering this reform.
We are creating a hub-and-spoke model of service delivery where schools in major regional towns are supporting those in more remote areas. Opportunities for enhanced interschool sport events, residential programs and programs to support transient students will strengthen the relationships between schools and assist students to access learning that meets their individual needs.
We have commenced rewriting the Education Act to ensure it meets the future needs of education services in the Northern Territory. We will have contemporary legislation that enables us to deliver reforms to behaviour management, remote service delivery and school governance, as well as innovation in the way education services are provided into the future. A consultation draft will be out for discussion in the first half of next year.
Over the next 12 months, we will focus on rebalancing the system so we have equal emphasis on striving to improve outcomes for students who are falling behind, as well as those with high potential. We will aim to increase the number of students, particularly Indigenous students, achieving an NTCET; to increase our average university entrance ATAR scores; and develop a long-term strategy for contemporary asset management, infrastructure forecasting and planning education services that encompass new and innovative ways of building and using infrastructure for educational purposes. The development of a greater Darwin infrastructure plan will assist to ensure growing and changing population patterns are accounted for in the future service provisions in the area.
We will reset our relationship with the Australian government to an agreed strategic plan, particularly on Indigenous education that supports long-term funding commitments to programs that work and ensures the Northern Territory not only influences but drives the priorities to which Australian government funding is directed. This is particularly important when it comes to areas such as improving service delivery in the bush and the way we address Indigenous education reform, identifying and implementing measures to address poor attendance and learning outcomes and the location and management of boarding schools for remote students.
It is in areas such as these that the Northern Territory’s experience of previous reforms and knowledge of context needs to be front and centre of the decision-making process to ensure we not only learn from previous experience, but make the most of the opportunities available to deliver real results from government investment.
In conclusion, this government is focused on getting it right. We are intent on discovering what works and targeting our spending towards improved outcomes. The Northern Territory sits in stark contrast to other jurisdictions in Australia and when it comes to education outcomes, we are at the bottom of the pile and have been for decades. We will not experience the level of improvement demanded of us if we continue to deliver education in the same way we always have. We must challenge the conventions that have led us to this place and plot a new way forward based on proven practices that deliver results.
This is a journey we should all embrace and, politics aside, we all want to see improved educational outcomes that lead to real opportunities for students. Join us, and together we can make a difference.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Ms FYLES (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, this statement is scripted, dishonest and dangerous. I challenge the minister to go into any Territory school and tell the students they are ‘at the bottom of the pile’. It is offensive and misleading. You are wrong, as a government, to say education in the Territory is going backwards.
The Northern Territory had the largest gains in Australia between 2008 and 2010, made by Indigenous students in Years 3, 5, 7 and 9 in reading, spelling, grammar and punctuation. These results are a great tribute to the hard work of teachers in schools across the Territory and the students themselves, but these improvements are being put at risk by the actions of this CLP government.
Minister, is this how you improve outcomes? Do you improve educational outcomes by cutting teacher numbers and putting down teachers and students? Do you improve educational outcomes by slashing jobs? We have the most complex and challenging educational environment in the country. The proportion of Indigenous students is nearly 40%, compared with around 3% nationally.
The scale and complexity of the Territory’s remoteness is of a different level to the rest of Australia. Students from an ESL background make up a far greater proportion than any other jurisdiction and have significant learning needs. To cut educational services and teacher numbers before any of these reviews have been completed is ridiculous. It is just wrong.
You are undertaking three reviews: Indigenous education, middle years education and senior years education. These are all areas you are cutting. I doubt any review will indicate an improvement of outcomes will be as a result of fewer teachers and less educational spending, so why cut now before the reviews have been completed? It does not make sense to slash and burn, cut jobs and then review.
You claim to be focusing on early childhood education, but there is no new investment in this area from your government. You are cutting teachers across the Territory, including primary schools, and I want to highlight one school to show this. I know a school that was set to receive, under the old formula, 1.6 extra teachers. Under your new formula, they have lost 0.3; that school has effectively lost two teachers. This is happening in our primary schools across the Territory, so for you to stand in this Chamber and say our primary schools are not losing teachers is wrong.
The Indigenous education review is meaningless without genuine consultation in the bush communities. We must question cutting positions before the review is completed. Your CLP government needs to consult widely on Indigenous education, receive the best advice from remote communities across the Territory and speak to your own colleagues.
My colleague, the member for Johnston, has called on the CLP government to ensure the review team includes senior Indigenous educators who could bring their experience and expertise to the review. Gurruwun Yunupingu could bring a wealth of knowledge to the review. People such as her should be involved with the review; they are long-term Territorians who are passionate and know what needs to be done and what is being done. We are still waiting to hear from you about what you will do to ensure they are involved in the review.
A recent COAG report shows we still have a long way to go in closing the Indigenous education gap, but we are making inroads. It does not make sense to be cutting teachers, cutting support staff when there is more work to be done in the bush.
There is no evidence to support the government’s view that cutting teachers will improve educational outcomes. The government says teachers should make submissions to the review, but how can you expect anyone to take these reviews seriously when the cuts are happening now, before the conclusions of the review and the absence of any evidence?
It is not just teaching positions your CLP government is slashing. On 28 October, you announced:
- The proposed new organisational structure will mean 85 positions will be regionalised…
A number of areas have been consolidated which results in a reduction of 71 positions across the department…
Seventy-one support staff positions gone, 85 regionalised and we are yet to see where they have ended up. School support positions provide vital programs such as ICT, behavioural management and counselling. These are the people who support our teachers in the classroom. They make sure that students learn. They make sure students with behaviour management issues do not disrupt the rest of the class. They make sure computers are working, science rooms are set up, school functions run smoothly, first aid can be provided – if support staff go, so do all these extra services. This will mean more pressure on teachers, and that is putting our Territory students at risk.
Support roles ensure teachers can focus on our children in the classroom, but with your government taking away support positions, our teachers are under more pressure. Classrooms will become less about learning, and there will be less individual attention as a result. Your government’s decisions mean our classrooms are bigger with less support and less focus on learning. Along with cutting teachers and cutting support positions, this government is cutting grant programs.
Your government has cut $842 000 from VET in Schools; $1.026m from CDU operating and infrastructure grants; $225 000 from a teacher training program; $280 000 from special needs students; $8000 from the Central Australian wraparound support program; $42 000 from CDU Centres of Excellence; $106 000 from extreme behaviour grants; $100 000 from ICT learning; $20 000 for music in the bush; $159 000 from the ‘Polly’ Farmer centre at Centralian Senior College in Alice Springs; $30 000 from VAMPtv, which engages Indigenous kids through music; and $50 000 from the Smart Schools Awards. These are huge cuts to our education system. These programs are important. Every program I mentioned has been cut by your government or has had funding cut from it. Cutting these programs, combined with cutting teachers and support staff, does not make sense. The only reason you have given is we need to save money. As the Minister for Education, you need to rise above that.
I was recently told a story about a newly graduated teacher. This person was born and bred in the Territory. They had a gap year, undertook some tutoring and decided they would like to do teaching at university; your government gave them a scholarship. Over $50 000 was invested in this young Territorian to become a qualified maths and science teacher for our senior schools. This person cannot get a job under your government. We are short of Territory teachers and your government is not providing opportunities; instead you are cutting teachers. That is just one of many stories I have heard over the last few weeks.
I am most concerned about your community-driven schools. You said several communities and non-government service providers have already expressed interest in exploring these new government arrangements. Yesterday, there were reports that Namatjira college has done a deal with the Department of Education to take over the Docker River primary school. You tell us in this parliament today the government is increasing the number of non-government and private community-based organisations, but it appears that deal has already been done. This has been done without consultation. Where is it all going? Why have we, as parents, not had consultation about future plans? Who is talking to parents? Who is talking to the community about what it all means? Why can we not have transparency around these arrangements? It is policy on the run. I personally believe it is the privatisation of our public schools by another name, and that is everything that Labor stands against. We will be continuing to focus on that because we do not agree with it.
People look to government to focus on education, improve educational outcomes, providing that basic right for Territorians. We have heard speeches in this parliament today, stating that if we do not get education right for our kids, they will have no hope.
This statement is most telling in its omissions. There is no mention of middle school support or ways to assist reengaging students in these years, when research shows us they become disengaged. If you are serious about improving behaviour in schools, you must rule out cuts to behaviour management. We are still hearing you will make cuts to funding for The Malak Re-engagement Centre, which deals with our most at risk youths. We do not want to see a single position lost from that centre. We are hearing you have shelved plans to scrap the centre as a whole, but you are still planning to cut staff there.
The centre was set up in response to an extreme student behaviour working group report, following growing concerns from teachers about violence in our schools. They work with 70 of the most challenging students, alongside Danila Dilba, Mission Australia, carers and parents. Some of these students are involved with the judicial system. The centre works to give these students a chance at learning, a life away from crime.
The statement does not mention senior schooling or offer pathways and opportunities for our older students. This has been raised with me. Fewer pathways in our senior schools is the result of cutting subject choices. You talk about pathways in VET, but you are removing options. Our senior students have fewer pathways, thanks to your government. They do not want a diminished subject choice. They do not want a lack of pathways. Some students are unable to complete the pathway they are already taking, which is a mixture of school and VET.
You are directly interfering with students’ education. You are responsible for this. I ask again: why have you started cuts before you have had the review and before any recommendations have been received? Your government is in complete disarray over education. We have had three ministers in the first year, the member for Araluen, the member for Port Darwin and now you, the member for Brennan. You have all promised the world but have been short-sighted, and you are responsible for the decay of our school system over the last year.
I do not get it. I can understand why you would ignore me, but I do not understand why you ignore the hundreds of teachers here today. Why are you ignoring parents? I know of numerous letters sent to you that your office has ignored.
Only yesterday, the member for Goyder tabled a petition with 113 signatures from people in Yuendumu who are opposed to the cuts. The member for Namatjira tabled a petition with 62 signatures from Areyonga. The member for Arnhem tabled a petition with 99 signatories from Ramingining. The petition says the Ramingining community is united in its belief the staff cuts to Ramingining School will have a detrimental impact on the education of its students. The citizens of Ramingining believe reducing the number of teacher positions in their remote school will increase the gap between academic standards of Indigenous and mainstream students. The petitioners want the Northern Territory government to withdraw the cuts to teaching positions from your staffing formula changes for their school. I do not know how it can be any clearer. It is a petition; it is not a huge amount of signatures but is a huge amount from our community.
You talk about getting it right but you have so far alienated all major stakeholders. You have alienated teachers, parents, the AEU, COGSO, ANTSEL and fair-minded citizens. It was interesting to hear you raise the Northern Territory Open Education Centre in your speech. What you have done there is just wrong, and it is appalling. You have moved a public school serving 650 students with no concrete plans and no set budget in place. When responding to my comments, will you commit to move them permanently to their new facility by the start of the 2016 school year? The school council has asked me to put that question to you. They will not let up on this; they have accepted they had to move from Chrisp Street to Nightcliff Middle School, but they will not let up on this.
You say there will be a new facility in time; they want more than that – if you were genuine about this, you would have been making plans all year. Instead, our education system is in chaos. The music school being relocated to Sanderson Middle School – we spoke about it this morning – is costing hundreds of thousands of dollars and is an unnecessary disruption. For staff in these schools, apart from everything else, you have added extra worry and stress. It might seem trivial, but staff at the NTOEC are wondering if their desks will fit. Where will they be learning? You really need to understand.
Talking about the federal funding arrangements, you said a federal funding deal for the Territory should be announced ‘very, very soon’, after your meeting with Christopher Pyne. You also said you were confident the new government would match the Gonski funding. We saw all that thrown out the window yesterday. That is not right. The Territory government has let down Territory schools in negotiating these funding arrangements and we are now being left out in the cold. It means no funding from the federal government for Territory schools and, on top of your government’s funding cuts to teachers and support positions, we are even worse off. When will you stand up for Territory school kids and fight to deliver more funding, which means more individual attention in our communities?
You spoke with the Treasurer about time yesterday. Did you impress upon him that teachers, parents and students want the government to stop the cuts now? What was the result of the conversation with the Treasurer? You must stop and listen.
Minister, talking about education as if it is not the Department of Education’s responsibility – ‘It is a whole-of-government approach; it is up to the department to …’ – you do not understand, within our schools, it is up to the department to ensure our kids are supported and resourced so they can learn. You are trying to shift the blame onto other departments. You are the Minister for Education, you are responsible.
You say parents need support and families need extra support. While it is technically not the responsibility of schools to provide the services they do, teachers and schools are hubs in remote communities. Teachers and teaching assistants want their kids to learn. If that means we need to provide wraparound support to our teachers, to our communities – we work together to educate our kids. We have one chance to get it right with these kids, otherwise it is another generation gone without support. Minister, that is what you do not get. You are trying to shift the blame. ‘It is a whole-of-government approach. Parents need to do more.’ The reality is we have one chance to get it right with these kids. I urge you to rethink that.
Something that is extremely disappointing is the cutting of the GEMS program. The Girls Engagement Monitoring and Support program was originally set up at Sanderson Middle School in 2009, following concerns from parents and teachers about attendance and support for young girls at school. Indigenous parents and the Sanderson School Council agreed that something had to be done. This is a cohort that research shows – parents talk constantly about it being hard for middle school girls. It was based on the successful Clontarf program for boys, which is fantastic. Girls wanted their own program, and that should be respected. You have not cut the Clontarf program, but you have cut the GEMS program, and that is wrong.
That is a well-resourced program. I visited the GEMS program at Sanderson and I saw it in action at Nightcliff. It is a program that provides support to teachers and those girls, and their attendance results and their performance have improved. I do not understand your logic for cutting that program. You are sitting there, shaking your head at me. The facts are their attendance and success at school has improved.
There are so many good stories. I heard a story about one of the girls who graduated Year 12 last year and has gone on to study at CDU. This is a girl who may have been getting into trouble, becoming at risk, who could have gone the other way. She has come through with the support of the GEMS program. There are so many good stories about girls in the program.
The loss is devastating to Dripstone Middle School, Nightcliff Middle School and Casuarina Senior College. It was a program that made a real difference, but your government’s cuts have put that at risk and that is not fair.
Why would you cut funding to a successful program that engages students and boosts attendance? It highlights that your government has the wrong priorities. It is not listening to parents or the community. Those parents want that program to continue.
This morning, the public gallery was filled with teachers because they are concerned about them, their colleges and their support staff losing their jobs. It is clear that teachers, support staff, administration staff and parents have the support of the community in their campaign to reverse these dysfunctional cuts. This is something that concerns even people who do not have children involved in school, whose children are not of school age or who may have moved on. It is not right.
When I spoke this morning, I did not get the opportunity to ask a number of questions, so I will ask those this evening with time permitting. Why are you dismantling group schools? Group schools free up bush teachers to teach. You constantly say this is what you want teachers to do – teach – and the group schools program – the Top End Group Schools and other ones around the Territory, such as the Warlpiri school, are taking the load off teachers and letting small, one classroom schools teach. I call on the bush members from your government to raise this with the minister. What is going on with removing the group schools?
The Isolated Children’s Parents Association spoke with me and they are extremely concerned. My colleague, the member for Nelson, spoke earlier today about pretty drastic concerns parents have that there will only one be adult at a school. That is wrong. There is a program where, with a 12-year-old – do not shake your head, this is the reality – and an eight-year-old, one stays with the class and the other one runs for help to make the phone call. That is wrong, but that is the reality of your cuts in our schools.
I know of schools that cannot fill their timetable, yet your department is ignoring their business plans. These are schools that have their allocation of teachers and know quite well how many students they will have at their school next year. They can do this from actual enrolments, and the primary school feeder is telling them how many kids are coming across. They cannot work their timetable for next year. What are they meant to do? Just wait until the first day of school when they have the students, then the department will say, ‘Oh, actually, yes, you do need a few more teachers’? This is because your contract teachers have gone. No teachers were losing their jobs, yet our contract teachers are gone, so they cannot fulfil their timetables. The principals are in an awkward position. They are saying to some teachers, ‘I am pretty sure I will have a job for you, but you need to do what is best for you’. Then, on the first day of school, there is will be chaos. They will then have to try to find teachers to fill those positions, yet they had fantastic contract teachers who will be lost to the system. This is the reality of what your government is doing. You think we are constantly talking about it, but it is a harsh reality across the Territory, across our middle and senior schools.
The timetabling issue for next year is something principals do not know how to handle and the department is ignoring their requests. I am aware of business plans, sitting with the department, and those are being knocked back or ignored. This is where a school has shown evidence they have this many enrolments for next year, they will need this many teachers, yet the department is just ignoring them. They are losing their contract teachers, they cannot employ anyone else. I am aware of one school, where on one day for one lesson, the principal is in charge of about 300 students. This is the reality of your education cuts, so I call on you to not ignore that any more.
School councils have written to you, local members have written to you, and I am aware it has been quite critical. I am also aware government members have been lobbying you, but we have also been lobbying your office in briefings and have been ignored.
Debate suspended.
MOTION
Aboriginal Town Communities
Aboriginal Town Communities
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, it has taken a while to get here. I move that the Northern Territory government makes no decision over the future of any Aboriginal town communities within the Darwin region, including Adelaide River, until the residents of these communities have been given sufficient opportunities to make informed and independent decisions about what they want. This includes making informed and independent decisions about the ownership of leases.
You are probably aware that over the last few years I have been urging that there is an open review of the future of town communities, especially the One Mile, Knuckey and 15 Mile communities. Two of those communities are in my electorate. I raised this issue as a motion on 5 February 2012. I asked for that review to look at future expansion plans, existing and future land leasing arrangements, home ownership and local government. I said the review should include views of residents, the Aboriginal Development Foundation, relevant housing bodies and all other relevant government and non-government agencies
I also asked if I could be an observer at some of these meetings, because I do have an interest in what happens to the future of these communities. The government set up a body, which was made up mostly of housing associations and other government departments. It included Larrakia Nation and the Aboriginal Development Foundation, but did not include Yilli Rreung which looks after the housing on these communities, and it did not include the residents.
I asked the previous minister what was happening and if I could be on the board. The answer was, ‘Well, you could always write me a letter if you have some problems’, which was a bit rough. I know there is politics in this place but I have an interest in what happens in these communities. Anyone who has been to these communities will understand there are major social problems that need addressing; these problems can be partially addressed, at least, through some sort of vision, which we do not have at present, in relation to the ownership of the land, the houses and municipal services.
The reason for me bringing forward this motion is that I had a telephone call from Aboriginal Development Foundation CEO, Bernie Valadian. He said he had been asked to go to some meetings organised by the Larrakia Nation that were being facilitated by a real estate agent. There was a representative of the government involved and they were going to meet at Finlay’s at Yarrawonga. During the second part of this discussion, I was told they were attempting to convince Bernie Valadian from the Aboriginal Development Foundation to hand over the leases of these parcels of land to the Larrakia Nation. I was surprised about this because I had not heard anything from the government in the form of a report from the review. I had not known there was any move by the government to change the leases over through a third party.
It concerned me that the residents were missing out in this discussion and review that had been set up by the government. I asked some of the residents at the 15 Mile if they knew there had been discussions about Larrakia Nation taking over the lease of the land. They had not heard much except for some comments from Bernie Valadian. I asked if they wanted the Larrakia Nation to take over and they said no. They were pretty straightforward. If they do not understand what you are saying, they will shake their head as if they do not understand what you are talking about, but in this case they were fairly adamant they did not want Larrakia Nation to take over.
I am not here to barrack for Larrakia Nation. I am, however, here to barrack for people in these communities to have a real opportunity to speak for the future of their homes. People forget that although there might be social problems there from time to time, it is where people live and where their homes are. They go to work from there and kids go to school from there.
We do not have any sort of plan or vision for where these communities should go. You would think the right thing for the government to do would be to set up a review to reveal the essential issues that surround the future of this community. I instead found the Minister for Community Services saying, ‘We are only discussing essential services. The issue of land leasing belongs with the department of Lands and Planning.’
Why would you split this up? You are surely not going to talk about leases and the future ownership of houses and not include municipal services? There is a need to talk about local governance arrangements and whether these communities should be included within the local government council for road maintenance rather than being looked after by Yilli Rreung, which does not have a lot of money for major upgrades to infrastructure. The Larrakia Nation does some work in these communities as well.
This idea, which I thought made a bit of sense when split into two, actually splits into three. You had someone from the Chief Minister’s department working with a real estate agent and with Larrakia Nation trying to find a way to get Bernie Valadian from the Aboriginal Development Foundation to hand his leases over to Larrakia Nation. Big mistake; nobody decides to involve the people that live there. ‘They are not relevant to this discussion. We will just have this discussion in Finlay’s restaurant and all will be nice, cosy and complete.’ Regardless of how well you think the Aboriginal Development Foundation operates, you are dealing with a legal entity and they still have the leases over the land. To simply hope someone will hand over the lease, free of charge, is wishful thinking. On the other hand, you have the lands and planning review. I asked the minister for a briefing and I have not had a response. I do not know if it is secret squirrel business and I am not allowed to know what is going on. However, I wrote to the minister asking for a briefing with John Coleman as to where the government is at regarding leases over these communities. It is important it is done in a fairly open and transparent way so we know what is happening.
There was then a third review, from the Minister for Community Services. We are talking about housing. Why would you leave Yilli Rreung out of the housing discussion? They look after all the houses, yet are not on the main board. They have a subcommittee, which has never met. Yilli Rreung should be part of the main discussion group, yet they are not. Guess who is still not on the representative body? The residents. There is no formal section in these reviews saying there is a place for four or five residents from each community to be on this review so their point of view can be heard.
That could not be more important. About two years ago, I was invited to the Yilli Rreung meeting rooms with about 15 to 20 people from the Knuckey Lagoon community. They had an issue with one of the residents causing violence in the community. They met at Yilli Rreung’s office and explained they had gone to the police but it was difficult to get much out of them. I am not saying the police did not act, but it is difficult for the police to act on a constant basis, and they had some concerns. This showed me we have a group of people with no formal ownership in the sense of governance of these communities.
The 15 Mile and Knuckey Lagoon areas have unelected representatives – Phil Goodman at the 15 Mile – or Gurdorrka as it is sometimes called, or Palmerston Indigenous Village – which sounds like something from a manual rather than something real. At Knuckey Lagoon, you have Ronnie Agnew. However, these people have not been elected. They have done leadership courses and that is fine, they are good people. I get on well with them and they do a fairly good job. However, if there is to be some ownership, if people are to understand that these people represent them, some form of governance is needed in these communities so they can say, ‘These are the people we elected to represent us’. At the moment, there is none of that. You have this airy fairy structure which does not have a concrete basis if you are talking about a strong form of governance. You have issues of tenancies and leases.
Theoretically, if Yilli Rreung has a management agreement over a house, they can kick people out, but they cannot necessarily kick people off the land. If someone is damaging the house, or there is a fight in the house and they order all those people out, they can get them off the veranda and, as far as I know, that then belongs to the Aboriginal Development Foundation. You would have to get Bernie to state that these people need to leave the property. You have some issues which need to be clarified as well.
You then have the issue of whether the people should have the right to buy these houses. I raised this with some women some time ago and asked if they would like to buy a house. They said, ‘Yes, but how would we pay for it?’ I said, ‘You pay for it instead of paying rent. You would put that money towards the mortgage.’ Some people would be interested, though I am not saying it would be for everybody.
Is it possible the 15 Mile could be divided into blocks and they could be part of a normal subdivision? Of course, that raises a bigger issue.
What is the future of these communities? Are they just an Aboriginal community on the outskirts of Palmerston, right next to Johnston? I hope the member does not get too excited. Last time I mentioned Third World, she thought I was talking about Johnston – looking at the graffiti on the fence that has not been removed, I am starting to wonder.
However, over the road from a fairly affluent suburb is a place that is an anomaly in some ways, even though I know the history of it. That issue needs to be addressed and it is not a simple issue. I have no doubt people are probably very comfortable living together, and it may be that is the way it should be.
I ask the minister for Lands and Planning – I mentioned this last time I was in parliament – what the chances are of putting the 15 Mile on the sewerage system? You are building this suburb right up to the highway. I am wondering whether you have given any attention to the possibility of removing all septic tanks at the 15 Mile and connecting them to the main sewer system. If we were to have a proper review, those are some of the issues that can be covered.
Another issue is future expansion. Where do we go? The 15 Mile is nearly full. I do not think there is much room where you could expand. However, Knuckey Lagoon may have opportunities. I should repeat that, so you can catch it. I was asking whether there is a chance of the government looking at connecting sewerage to the 15 Mile, since Johnston is just across the road. All those people have septics as far as I know. I thought it would be a good opportunity to get rid of them. It is not far across, and I am sure we could drill a hole under the road as they do with modern equipment today. I thought while I have you here, I would mention it; you cannot miss an opportunity in this world.
The other issue is expansion. Yilli Rreung, for instance, was looking at the possibility of putting a visitor centre at the 15 Mile. That may not be the right thing. Once again, there should be discussions with the community and the residents before anything like that happens. I think their idea was something similar to the visitor centre in Alice Springs, which is an excellent place. It was provided with mainly Commonwealth government funding. The visitor centre in Alice Springs is where people can stay for two weeks when they are going to hospital. They can stay in a tent – I am not talking about any old tent; it is a solid tent that is permanent – or you can stay in some basic or very nice accommodation, depending on what you want to pay. There may be opportunities for part of the 15 Mile to be looked at for that.
However, as I said, I have asked for a briefing. I am interested. Sometimes, people say, ‘Oh, you are just a politician, so who cares?’ I hope I am a politician who cares. I do not speak, as people might say, for the sake of hearing my own voice; do not like the sound of my own voice when I hear it on the radio, I can tell you. However, it is no good me just speaking for the sake of speaking.
The issues with the 15 Mile and Knuckey Lagoon have been around for a long time, and there comes a time when we hope we can get together to try to solve some of the issues. In the end, I do not care if the minister says I cannot be an observer; I will live with that. I am more concerned that the residents are involved in your discussions about leasing and who owns the land, and are involved in discussions about governance, housing, and community services. I do not think we should have the Chief Minister sending someone off doing secret negotiations with the Aboriginal Development Foundation and somebody else without the residents being part of those decisions.
I cannot stress it more: for many people, this is their home. People have lived there for quite a while. Of course, there are people who drift in and out; there is a lot of that. Of course, there are problems with alcohol and drugs. It is still a community – sometimes dysfunctional, fractured and violent, but you can go there other times and it is a great community. There are fine people you can sit down with and talk to. Unfortunately, their lives are mixed up in some of the issues that permeate some of these places.
I do not think we can sit around and hope things will get better; we have to be proactive. We have to understand the history of these communities. They were set up, basically, for people who came to town. In many cases, they came to town to get drunk, and they had a place where they could rest and sleep the grog off for the night. People from different communities in the Territory came there.
I recently had the privilege of launching the book Maningrida by Helen Bond Sharp. I have read the book and I have always known Maningrida people who have been at the 15 Mile, and there are a few of them there presently. She mentioned that a long time ago – probably the 1930s – Maningrida people were aware of a place called Darwin. During that time, they drifted up to Gunn Point and the outskirts of Darwin. They came to see the bright lights. They may not have been that bright in the 1930s, but they were attracted to the area.
These communities have had that history for a long time. One Mile Dam is connected to Belyuen, Delissaville, and people from my wife’s family and others. There were people from Port Keats, Daly River, Adelaide River and Maningrida at Knuckey Lagoon, and there were also people from the Tiwi Islands and Jabiru at 15 Mile. The reason is historical, but we have moved on. We have built good houses there, and if you were to go there, you would see some houses that are not so good. If you looked at my house, with a demountable down the middle, you would probably say, ‘Well, that is a beaut house’. There are some top houses there but, unfortunately, they do get vandalised and much of that has to do with grog; we have all these issues.
I would have thought the common sense thing would be to get people together, to have a review that included the residents. What I have seen so far is three reviews: one from the Chief Minister looking at something, while the minister for Lands and Planning is looking at leasing, and over here we have the minister looking at community services. I do not know why we did not do this together, bring the residents together and have a good meeting, not too formal. Do not put them in a building like this. If we could have it out there, it would be far better, where they feel far more at home. You could start to work your way through some of these issues so we can come up with some answers. If we do not try and do not include the residents, we will fail.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for bringing on this motion. We support this motion because it recognises many of the residents of these communities are also people with legal property rights that should be respected. They are members of associations and representative bodies that hold the leases for the land occupied by the communities. At Acacia, Larrakia people understand there are also traditional owners with inalienable rights under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act. Property rights are protected by our legal system and, ultimately, the Australian Constitution. If government does not want to compulsorily acquire property rights, a pathway is available, but this is complicated by a lengthy legal process and requires appropriate compensation.
Aboriginal land, under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act, is inalienable land and offers a very high level of protection for the property rights of traditional owners. For all his huffing and puffing and grandstanding on Alice Springs town camps, former Liberal Indigenous Affairs minister, Mal Brough, quickly discovered this for himself. Legal issues played a large part in his plans for acquisition of lease interests in Alice Springs town camps. He promised take overs and intervention in Alice Springs town camps, but quickly found the housing associations holding the town camp leases had property rights protected under law, as they should be.
It took former Labor minister Macklin, with a bit more patience, goodwill and a capacity to negotiate, to break through, by listening, negotiating and ultimately concluding an agreement to the Alice Springs transformation plan, and make major progress in improving infrastructure, services and family life in those town camps, as well as wider benefits for the whole Alice Springs community.
The issue distracting from progress has been the CLP scrapping the Banned Drinker Register. This has put drunks back on tap and is creating more pressure on the residents of Alice Springs town camps, struggling with waves of intoxicated visitors and violence associated with alcohol abuse.
The Darwin town camps have a long history and many traditions associated with them. It is not for a government of any persuasion to deny the history of the residents, their family history, community identity and attachment to these places. They know as well as anyone the issues they have to deal with and how they would like to see the communities develop. At Yilli Rreung housing, which provides services to many of these communities, Colin Tidswell and his team have done some great work in recent times, developing plans for affordable housing and links to pathways to full employment.
At Bagot, we have seen the community partner with the University of Melbourne and others to create a logical and coherent plan for development of that community. It is important that town camps are better connected to the broader community through schools, jobs and local government services. As part of their own desire for better connection to the broader Darwin community, it was great to see the Bagot community welcoming visitors into their homes as part of NAIDOC week this year. ABC radio also reported live on events from the Bagot community. The member for Fong Lim often talks of his desire to see more openness at Bagot and to have it connected to the wider community. This was a great example of that community doing exactly that.
At the Palmerston Indigenous Village, residents have been working for some time on improving their local community governance and readiness for planning the future of their community. They will struggle in finding support for basic issues such as road access to their community. There are many practical issues government should be focusing on rather than proclamations of intervention and acquisition of land. This is why we supported the motion of the member for Nelson in May 2012. It was aimed at establishing a working group to review the development of town camps in the Darwin region, including future expansions, land leasing arrangements, home ownership and interaction with local government.
Importantly, our support at that time was, in part, based on the premise the review should include feedback from residents, the Aboriginal Development Foundation – a key lease holder - the relevant government agencies and NGOs. It was premised on cooperation and partnerships, working together to move forward. It included an amendment to involve the Commonwealth; they helped establish the communities and a role of support for housing, essential services and other activities.
The then member for Braitling, now Chief Minister, said at the time:
- A cohesive approach with the organisations rather than an attack-based approach to try to change things is the way forward in these areas because we have to work together.
The member for Braitling had obviously observed the Mal Brough style in Alice Springs and saw how his attack approach went nowhere. Alternatively, perhaps he had his eye on the 2012 election and his leadership ambitions and wanted to present a friendly face to people in Darwin. The member for Braitling added to a debate on the Darwin town camps in March 2013 when he again talked about the need for a new direction and how the new CLP government would work together with town camp residents and housing associations to provide sustainability. This was in contrast to the member for Fong Lim, who has a track record of grandstanding on the future of Bagot. In August 2012 he produced an election brochure saying he would turn Bagot into a subdivision where anyone could buy a house and the CLP would engage the Larrakia Development Corporation to design and cost a subdivision of affordable housing. More recently, the NT News has reported the member for Fong Lim saying the NT government wants to see Bagot redeveloped into a suburb. That is an election commitment.
In that same news report, well-known Darwin lawyer Lex Silvester said there were major stumbling blocks that could cost millions of dollars and bog down the process for years in legal challenges. Is it the member for Fong Lim’s commitment or a commitment binding on the government as a whole? There are now further media reports of the member for Fong Lim discussing plans for development of One Mile Dam with Larrakia Nation. Also, in September this year, the Minister for Community Services issued a media release saying the government was working with key stakeholders on how to better deliver essential services to the Darwin town camps. This is a long way short of the idea the task force would review development and plans to help address issues relating to expansion plans, home ownership and land tenure.
What is going on? We are seeing this government developing the habit of cutting corners and striking shonky deals to give an impression they have a plan for the future and are getting on with the job of developing the Northern Territory. However, these deals, whether they be about water allocation or land leasing on the Tiwi Islands, always seem to have an air of shonkyness and having been cobbled together without due regard to process or meaningful consultation with affected Territorians.
This Assembly previously agreed to a plan and a way forward on Darwin town camps: the establishment of a task force to take forward the issues relating to the development of these town camps involving the residents. Those plans seem to have been derailed, as the government, and most notably the Treasurer, appear to be off to the side making deals with developers and leaving residents behind. We call on the government to stop the side deals and start talking to residents as well as their representative bodies and developers. We call on the government to give the residents of our town camps confidence that the government recognises their history and place in the community and will work with them to deliver the kind of future we all want for these families: a well-developed community with better housing options for residents, including home ownership. I commend the motion to the House.
Mr CHANDLER (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Madam Speaker, I welcome the motion tonight from the member for Nelson. In many regards, I agree with much of what he has said. The issue of town camps, not only in the greater Darwin area, but in other places in the Territory, has been put in the too hard basket for too long. I recall doing some research recently and information which came to hand was the former Territory government did a bit of work on this in about 2008. I believe it was after the 2007 intervention, where there was talk of normalising camps and things like that. It was interesting to look at the legal work undertaken in about 2008. However, it was obviously all too hard for the previous government; they did not have the courage to take on any of those hard ones. For too long, these issues have been put in the too hard basket and we, the Country Liberals, will not shy away from taking action in some of these areas.
It should be put in context that town camps were initially established as temporary accommodation for people travelling from remote communities into Darwin. They have long since become permanent or long-term residences. There are no proper tenancy arrangements in place, which is problematic in itself. There is no real security of tenure for people living there and they do not share the same rights as ordinary tenants. These things should have been tackled years ago, not in 2013 – perhaps five or 10 years ago, even longer. The question regarding who owns the properties and, ultimately, who has responsibility for maintaining them is always a concern. The problems are well entrenched, and previous governments left them lying in the too hard basket. This government is of the view these issues deserve closer scrutiny and is why my department of Lands and Planning has been active.
I want to assure the member for Nelson that, unlike Labor, there are no shonky deals going on here. This is open and accountable. There are negotiations occurring and some of the issues you brought up today – because of the nature of those discussions, it would be premature to say who they are with, but the people you spoke about not being in the loop, I can assure you, are in the loop. There are discussions happening with all groups involved. The concerns you raised are relevant and are why we need these groups involved. There are some real issues in regard to certain backgrounds, certain Indigenous families, certain groups that have things written into their constitutions which we need to scrutinise further before any decisions are made in these areas.
I assure you, member for Nelson, the government will consult with residents about any changes affecting them. You asked for a briefing and I assure you I can follow that up and it will be done. Working with you on this – it is something you are quite passionate about and you feel similar to me. It has been left for too long and there are complications.
The member for Johnston said if the member for Fong Lim went down the road of trying to normalise Bagot, he would be locked in the courts for years. Those are complications that if you have the courage to take them on, you deal with. It is easy to put them in the too hard basket; this is another area that has been put in the too hard basket for too long. You will be provided a briefing, member for Nelson. I was going to refer to your media release, but we had a bit of a chat about that release going out. I can assure you again, there are negotiations going on and the right people are being consulted at the moment.
We need to make inroads in this area. For far too long, too many people have been living in residences that, in some cases, are well below standards. The issue I am concerned about is their rights as tenants; there do not seem to be any rights. I would like to think we can move to a day where long-term leasing arrangements at places like Knuckey Lagoon could be available for Indigenous people to purchase the properties there, to have rights over those properties so they have something, a legacy they can pass on to their families – the same with the 15 Mile at Palmerston Indigenous Village, across the road from our place. That is another area that could be expanded.
You talked about sewerage. If other developments go our way, sewerage in that particular area is on the cards. The reality is the Territory is growing. There will be some development opportunities, particularly in the area of housing, and if that brings forward the ability to provide sewerage for that camp that would be fantastic. There are ways to expand and provide better facilities for these camps, but we should be going down the road of providing tenure for people. That can be done; under the legal frameworks we have today, with the type of leases we have, the special leases the camps come under could be converted to other types of leases that allow houses and property line surveys so we have the ability for Indigenous people to take ownership. That is the way we would be moving into the future with our town camps.
Regarding the One Mile Dam area, most people have seen the master plan for the Darwin CBD area, which involves pushing out through the old tank farms into the One Mile Dam area. We should be working with the Indigenous organisations about the best way to utilise that land. The city will expand. The master plan for Darwin is a fantastic document. It will require that area to be developed, but I prefer to do that with the assistance of and in collaboration with Indigenous organisations, because it is important. The city will grow and we need to take on some of the issues that have been left for a long time. Will they be complicated? They will be complicated, as the member for Johnston said. Will there be court cases? There may be court cases, but if you negotiate with people in good faith and understand their needs, you can bring them along on the journey of moving towards better access to properties, better services and long-term security. You have an understanding there because that is what we would try to achieve with many of these camps.
Overall, there are good service providers which can provide ongoing services for these areas. However, under the current leasing arrangements, it is made that much more complicated. Good negotiations and understanding can move mountains in this area and do for the town camps what should probably have been done many years ago. Will it be hard? Perhaps it is hard. It was perhaps put in the too hard basket by previous governments. You do not know until you try. If you get halfway down the road and, all of a sudden, it is going to cost you millions of dollars in court cases, you might have to reassess. However, the reality is you should have the courage to take it on and try to improve, wherever possible, the lifestyles, tenure and security of the tenants who live in the town camps. I am happy to arrange that briefing for you.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his encouraging words. I do not know whether that means if we put this motion to a vote you will support it. I hope you will because it covered exactly what you said. You said you would involve the residents, and that is important.
I am disappointed the Minister for Community Services did not speak on this because, from my understanding, there are two reviews happening: one through the Department of Community Services and one through the department of Lands and Planning. You cannot really have one without the other and I was hoping I could have received some response from the Department of Community Services in relation to this. When I have spoken to people about whether they are being involved in this review, they have said no. They have said, ‘Oh, we were supposed to be, but we have not been involved in the review’. My concern, as it has been since the start of this campaign, is that residents have a say. Unless that happens, there will be decisions from the top, not decisions from the bottom, and we will not bring the people along with those decisions.
When I mentioned the word ‘sewerage’, I was thinking of a pipe across the highway, which is about 200m from Johnston to the 15 Mile community. The minister said, ‘Well, we are looking at expanding more housing opportunities’. Madam Speaker - who lives up the road from there - I am not sure people would be too pleased to see 400m2 blocks along Wallaby Holtze Road.
There is an argument in the department which seems to say, ‘Well, if you want sewerage, you have small blocks’. There is no argument about small blocks. We want rural blocks and if you want to have small blocks and you want to develop another township, it should be done as the greater Darwin plan was originally designed. This plan was created around having a series of cities around Darwin Harbour, which I always believed was one of the better plans for a city, rather than an urban sprawl. I certainly will not support urban sprawl just because land is available. I have heard this debate before that if you want sewerage to Howard Springs you will have lots of little blocks.
There is revolution in the air because I know there are already people - I know there is a Sydney company and I have been briefed by a person who has been involved in negotiations with this company. It is looking at carving up parcels of land in the rural subdivisions for small blocks. If the government is moving with that plan, they will certainly have a fight on their hands.
The member for Goyder and I brought out a plan, which we believe made sense, about developing a mosaic of district centres which included small subdivisions, but retained the basic rule of rural subdivisions. The minister was talking about expanding the 15 Mile, and I do not have a great problem there, because it is already developed. It is presently in the boundaries of Palmerston, although if it develops further to the east it will cross over the boundary and into Litchfield shire, which would raise other issues.
I thank the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure for ensuring a road to the 15 Mile will be built. I am not sure whether it will be bitumen or not, but I hope it is. As people might have known, this was one of the other issues floating around these communities. The 15 Mile did not have any legal access. They were not allowed access from the Stuart Highway and they were coming down on the Power and Water easement to have access. That had been the way for years since the Country Liberals government granted that community that parcel of land. It might have been acceptable when the Stuart Highway was a smaller road, but it certainly was not acceptable later on. There was actually no legal access to that community.
What has happened now is the road to the bus depot – where the buses are parked that move the INPEX workers – has been extended through to the 15 Mile. I thank the government for that. It is important the community was given legal and all-weather access because it was the case last year, or the year before, where an ambulance could not get through because the ground was so boggy.
The minister did mention there were no proper tenancies in place, no rights for tenants, and I do not believe I have not heard that before. I had presumed there were tenancy arrangements with Yilli Rreung and the Aboriginal Development Foundation. That must be a part of some of the discussions, because the people who live in the houses need rights, as do the people who maintain those houses. It is very difficult to maintain those houses in a fit condition if you do not have any rules and regulations or if they are not clearly written so people understand their responsibilities.
It was good to hear the minister is willing to consult with residents; that was the key to what I was asking. I am glad the minister will give me a briefing; knowing the way I send e-mails it might have gone into cyberspace, but I did send a request for a briefing. It is good to hear he is consulting with all people – people involved in the ownership of the land and the houses – and he is looking at possible alternatives for tenure on those areas, such as long-term leases over the houses so people can get some certainty.
He is right when he said this was in the too hard basket. I had some discussions with the previous government and there were some difficult issues in relation to the ownership of the land; changing ownership of the land is not a simple thing. There were legal complications there and if the government wanted to take over that land, it would have been a cost to the government. The minister is right to say it was, to some extent, in the too hard basket. As it got closer to the election, it just faded away. It is good to see it is now at least back on the agenda.
I am pleased the department is active in making some plans. The minister talked about some expansion; I would be interested to see what that is and they will hopefully cover that at the briefing. As I said, the 15 Mile can be expanded and you can put the sewerage in but do not see that as an incremental move into the rural area. We might have some land affordability issues, but we can resolve some of that by developing rural blocks. Not all land has to be little blocks; rural blocks can be subdivided at a reasonably cheap price. A 1 ha block can have septic, it does not have to have sewerage, and it does not have to have stormwater drainage, kerb and guttering. Those blocks could be turned off at a relatively moderate price. There is land in the area for that to be done.
To sum up, I say thank you, minister, for your response. I hope the Minister for Community Services can give me an update as to the progress of the review. It is important I find out that residents are being involved, otherwise I will not be pleased. I will think it is a top down review rather than a bottom up review which needs to happen. The residents are important and should not be forgotten. Just as we are talking about the changes to the local government boundaries - I have the feeling the residents are not being involved. A few of the, you might say, louder people are being asked and are making their point. That is fine, but that is not what this is all about. Just as I want the residents to be involved here, so should the residents of those proposed council areas affected by new boundaries.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Rapid Creek Flood Mitigation
Rapid Creek Flood Mitigation
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I move that this Assembly condemns this government for:
1. failing to implement the 2012 CLP election commitment to undertake flood mitigation at Rapid Creek
2. failing to complete and release by 31 December 2012 the flood study promised by the CLP Chief Minister, Terry Mills
3. failing to consult with local residents and Landcare groups about future plans or works for Rapid Creek
5. scrapping the Rapid Creek catchment advisory group.
As the local member for this area, there has not been a single issue I have been more frustrated with than this. I have spoken about Rapid Creek flooding time and time again in this parliament, with few outcomes from the government. According to the latest news report, the CLP government might finally have something more to say, which I welcome in their response.
During the 2012 Territory election campaign, both sides of politics knew Rapid Creek was an important issue. The CLP promised, on 20 August 2012, and I quote from their press release:
- The Country Liberals have announced a $1.5m down-payment on flood mitigation works around Rapid Creek.
It is pretty straightforward. The CLP promised two things: money and flood mitigation. A year later, what has happened to this ever strong commitment from the CLP? It is the same as many of their other broken election promises. The $1.5m promised was halved to $750 000 in the mini-budget as things were, as described then, ‘very tight in the budget.’ They cut this commitment in half yet found $300 000 for the Sports minister’s golf club. With regard to flood mitigation, the people living in Rapid Creek and Millner are no better off now than they were then. With the weather over the weekend, residents had flashbacks of that scary and traumatic night, flashbacks of waking their children and evacuating their homes in the middle of the night, memories of water levels rising higher and higher and their properties being damaged along with their cars and possessions.
Unfortunately, residents’ fears are founded because the CLP government, to date, has not undertaken any flood mitigation at Rapid Creek. We know the CLP have reneged on their 2012 election commitments, and we are left to wonder what they have done in their 15 months in office.
I turn to a letter I received from the then elected Chief Minister, Terry Mills, in December 2012. It was a response to the concerns I raised with him about Rapid Creek, as the local member. I wish to quote directly from that letter:
- A flood study was initiated in response to Rapid Creek floods in February 2011. The flood study draft report was provided to the previous government in mid May 2012. Following the review of this report, the previous government initiated a flood mitigation option study and the preliminary report was provided to them in August. The flood study report raised concerns regarding creek and flood plain levels, and recommended a resurvey of the area. This survey is complete and new flood maps will be developed with a view to release both the report and the flood extent mapping in December 2012. This release will be followed by community consultation to ensure a thorough understanding of the new inundation mapping and the potential impacts on the affected community.
To date, no flood study report has been released.
The letter goes on to talk about the preliminary investigation into the flood mitigation options report and says the following:
- It is expected that further investigations will be undertaken in the coming months with a view to release of the final report early next year and a consequential informed discussion with the community to commit to a specific option.
The former Chief Minister wrote this letter in December 2012. I believe he would have tried his best to honour the commitments outlined in his letter – to honour the release of the flood study and the maps, followed by releasing the final report early in the new year. We all know history has shown us it was never to be.
In March 2013, the elected Chief Minister, Terry Mills, was knifed as Chief Minister, along with his ability to progress this issue and honour his commitments. Instead, we ended up with the current Chief Minister, who has shown and done little for residents of Rapid Creek and Millner. To date, 27 November 2013, not a single report has been released by the CLP government, and for that this government should be condemned.
It does not stop there. In my letter, as a candidate, to residents during the 2012 Territory election – along with Labor committing $2.5m, $1m more than promised by the CLP – I recall the final statement of that letter:
- I feel it is important to hear from you, as local residents affected, before decisions are made.
As elected members of parliament, there are some things we must do, and one is consult. We live in a democracy and we must always speak to the public who elect us to office. The CLP government has failed in that respect. The CLP government never told residents about their downgraded commitment from $1.5m to $750 000. They never told residents what was happening with the studies and reports and where things were up to. Most importantly, they did not talk to residents or the local Landcare groups when they decided to mark over 100 trees in Rapid Creek with big pink crosses, earmarked for destruction. Naturally, the community was up in arms. The Minister for Infrastructure tried to smooth it over, saying it was routine and did not mean they were being cut down; a poor public servant was blamed as well. However, the buck stops with the minister and the instructions he gives to his department; the trees were not marked with ticks, they were marked with an X or marked with the word ‘prune’. You do not need to be a genius to figure out what the X meant.
The CLP government has failed to consult residents across Jingili, Millner, Rapid Creek and Nightcliff who were distraught that the Rapid Creek they knew was to be bulldozed. The Minister for Infrastructure tried to blame Labor for creating hysteria, instead of accepting his decisions as minister had led to the trees being marked and the mass community outcry. If there is any good to come of this, it is that the CLP government has learnt its lesson.
Minister Chandler, from what I am hearing, is committed to releasing the report to the public and allowing time for consultation. Releasing at the right time? This is debatable because of the lead up to Christmas and being after parliament. Consulting for long enough? This is again debatable, if it is only for two weeks. Nonetheless, he has said he will release the report and consult the community, and I welcome that announcement. The sooner the report is released and the community is consulted, the quicker we can undertake works to stop the flooding of the homes of these residents.
Finally, I want to mention the CLP’s decision to scrap the Rapid Creek catchment advisory group. I commend the work of my colleague, the member for Nightcliff, who has chased this matter up with the CLP government. However, the response has been disappointing. The CLP government is not interested in continuing with the valuable work of this committee that is dedicated to the Rapid Creek catchment area. It is a crying shame, given the committee’s support, advocacy and advice is exactly what is needed to ensure this is done properly. Maybe the minister for Lands and Planning will reinstate this advisory group.
The facts speak for themselves. I do not believe I have acted differently to any other local member in my place in highlighting what was promised and pointing out what was delivered. The CLP government has fast developed their official trademark and motto: over-promising and under-delivering. Unfortunately for the people who live near Rapid Creek, they are the latest in the string of Territorians left stranded by the CLP’s disastrous approach. Some in the CLP may say on one hand you want something done but, on the other hand, you do not. I will make it very clear: I want the CLP to honour it promises, to reinstate the full $1.5m committed on 20 August 2012, to release the report to the public as soon as possible and to consult with the community.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, it is always interesting listening to the member for Johnston try to talk about Rapid Creek. I was listening and I asked the minister if he would mind if I said a few words. I thought it would be good to see what the member for Johnston sees as the solution to addressing the flooding issue. What I just heard at the end of his very short speech – he does not go the whole distance – was ‘consult, release a report, and make sure there is money available’. I do not think any of those three things will reduce the impact of flooding in the Rapid Creek area.
I ask you, in your summation, member for Johnston, to provide us with a solution you believe will be the best thing to stop the flooding in Rapid Creek and the inundation of houses. I know on your side of the Chamber you cannot agree on the solution, whether it is cleaning out some of the waterways or providing any other solutions. Member for Johnston, in your wrap up, come up with a solution the residents of Rapid Creek will be happy with.
We will release a report and provide everything we have committed to, but you provide a solution you think can be done, rather than just putting up fairy tale things that will not stop the inundation of Rapid Creek.
Mr CHANDLER (Lands, Planning and the Environment): Madam Speaker, goodness gracious me, talk about leading with your chin! You spoke on the last motion, member for Johnston, about dodgy deals after what has been released in the last couple of days about Stella Maris. You also come off the back of 11 years of a Labor government that did nothing in the Rapid Creek area. To confuse things even further, you issued a media release on 17 September, telling and willing us to get on with it. ‘You promised you would fix flooding, get on with it!’ On 24 September, it was ‘stop the bulldozers’ from the member for Nightcliff, Natasha Fyles; ‘stop the bulldozers, hug the trees, save the trees!’ Not even on your side, member for Johnston, do you have you a plan because you want us to get on with the bulldozers and fix the problem, and your colleague issued a media release not a week later, saying ‘stop the bulldozers’. What is it, member for Johnston? What do you want us to do? Do we do exactly what the Labor Party did for their eleven-and-a-half years in government: nothing?
We committed to undertake a study to see what could be done to mitigate some of the issues with flooding in Rapid Creek. I would suggest the rains came down for many decades before I was on this earth and will continue for many eons after. The reality is there will always be severe rain events. If those severe rain events occur at the same time as a king tide or high tide in Darwin Harbour, in the Rapid Creek area you will have the convergence of two things, and that is water. For any government to say it can mitigate or prevent 100% of flooding in any river way or any of our coastal areas around this country – if you live on the coast or on any river system in this country, at some time or another, you are likely to be inundated with flooding. I for one, as the minister for Lands and Planning, do not want to raise expectations to the level that we will be able to mitigate, 100%, flooding in the Rapid Creek area. I cannot do it, I cannot hold back the rains and I certainly cannot hold back the tides. What we can do is take the report we have before us, go to the community in an open fashion and talk about some of the solutions to help mitigate the flooding in Rapid Creek – not prevent it but mitigate some of the flooding.
There are some medium- and long-term solutions to what we could possibly do as a government, but I have to stress it will not mitigate 100% of flooding in the Rapid Creek area. We have looked at some of these things and will consult with the general public who live in the area. They should be involved in this because they should know what the recommendations are and then, as a community, help the government make the decision on what we should do; while it will not mitigate 100% of the flooding, there are solutions. There will be people in the community who are not happy. The member for Nightcliff will probably not be happy because it might mean we have to use a bulldozer and clean out the silt from underneath the roadways, clean out the pipeworks so water can at least flow away a lot quicker than it does at the moment.
I listened to the Treasurer the other day when he was telling me about other pipeworks; he had paid personally to have a camera used inside a pipe, which I found interesting. He found there was a lot of silt build up in many pipes around Darwin that had built up over time through heavy rain events that have taken topsoil and sand away which has flowed into some of the pipeworks. There are probably many pipeworks that could be cleaned out, including those at Rapid Creek, under the Kimmorley Bridge. I was there and saw a large amount of silt. I am sure if some works were to be undertaken there to remove some of the silt, bound trees and shrubbery in the area, it would help the water flow. It is a double-edged sword in whatever we do because if we improve the flow in one direction, it improves the flow in the other direction.
There have even been thoughts of levy banks. Levy banks will work to a certain extent, but if you have a major rain event, coinciding with a high tide and those levy banks are breached in any way, you can have back flooding. This can be worse than initial flooding because often the water cannot get away once it is kept back by a levy bank. You then have ongoing issues of flooding for quite a while. There are no easy solutions to any of this. A levy bank is probably not feasible. If you did put a levy bank in, it would be a double-edged sword. It could cause more problems. Having had the opportunity to visit New Orleans a few years ago, about 22 months after Hurricane Katrina, I saw what flooding can do. The power of water can move homes; it was incredible. Many of the problems in New Orleans happened because the city filled up and the water could not get away because of the levy banks, so these banks can come with their own issues as well.
Member for Johnston, we have heard loud and clear. We have done the required studies, we now have a report and the next step is to go to the community. I give you an absolute commitment; those advertisements will go in the paper in the next week or so. We will set up some community consultation and we will work with the community to find the best solutions we can achieve within our means.
The one thing I do not want – this has become a political football. It gets confusing because on one hand you are calling for us to get on with the job and get it done and, yet, you have your good friend, the member for Nightcliff, saying ‘stop the bulldozers’, getting in the way and wanting to hug the trees. Your own side does not have a solution to this. You are at odds with each other on what should be done in the Rapid Creek area.
This is on the back of eleven-and-a-half years of a Labor government that did not seem to think it was a problem beforehand. In opposition, the world has turned. Maybe it rains more, maybe the tides are higher than they previously were. The reality is, Rapid Creek has not changed that much, although some of the feedback we have been receiving and comments in the paper or on social media indicate there has been a huge increase in mangroves in the creek over the years. Is that a factor in why the water does not flow as well today as it once did? People talk about what it was like in the area 20 and 30 years ago and things have changed. There is runoff from the airport that is contributing to much of the drainage coming down Rapid Creek today compared to what it once was.
There is truth in all of that but the reality is Rapid Creek has been there for many years and no one has seen fit to do anything about it beforehand, certainly not a Labor government for eleven-and-a-half-years. Even now you are at odds as a party on what we should do in the future. One wants to hug trees and one, like yourself, wants us to get a D9, strip it, clean it out and improve the water flow. Maybe that is one of the recommendations we need to act on, but I will not be making that decision without bringing the community along. The community needs to know what the report says, what the recommendations are and what we can reasonably do as a government to start to work on mitigating some of the flooding issues in Rapid Creek. That is the commitment you have from us.
Mr VOWLES (Johnston): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for spraying me for a couple of minutes in his contribution. He did not say much; there was nothing great that I can pass on to the residents of Rapid Creek Road in Millner, but I appreciate him coming into the Chamber. I thank the minister for Lands and Planning for his contribution and I will pick up on a few points. The Chief Minister was asking me what I would do. The first thing I would do, if I was the Chief Minister and in government, is fulfil my election commitments – what you promised the people you would do. It is a first rule of government to say, ‘We promised this, let us knock it off and do what we said we were going to do’. You are the government, you are the minister, you are the Chief Minister. You make those decisions, not me.
We are in opposition. We are here for a reason, as we have been told many times. We respect the fact we have been put here; we did not win the election. You made election commitments, you must fulfil them. If we were in government we would be doing that, as we did for 11 years. You ask what I would do? I would consult with the experts, consult with the Rapid Creek Landcare Group and, more importantly, consult with residents. I would reinstate the Rapid Creek catchment advisory group, which the minister disbanded. The Chief Minister can perhaps ask one of his drivers for directions to the Rapid Creek markets on a Sunday and stand at my office and listen to concerned residents who are there every weekend talking about this issue.
He may sit here and throw barbs and laugh about this issue, but this is an important issue for residents of Rapid Creek Road and Millner. I heard stories, when I was a candidate, and I hear them every Sunday, about families, in the middle of the night – 1 m of water – getting their kids out of their rooms and saving their lives. You made the commitment, fulfil it! I repeat, come to the Rapid Creek markets on a Sunday and listen to residents. I am sure you do not know how to get there. You would have to ask a taxi driver or one of your drivers to drop you there, but come and listen to the residents, face to face, and see if you are laughing then.
I thank the minister for Lands and Planning for his commitment. I genuinely believe the minister, and the then elected Chief Minister, Terry Mills, and their promise to fulfil the commitment you guys made in August 2012. I have said this many times, and although the Chief Minister might laugh and mock me, let us get politics out of this issue. Let us get the report out; let us work together to talk to the residents, to doorknock residents and organise a meeting. I am more than happy to offer my services to get the residents to a meeting in my office or anywhere to resolve this issue together. Let us stop playing politics and get it sorted because we can have argy bargy all night and every sittings but nothing is being done.
We have waited over a year for this report. We know a report was done, because we had one done. This is about getting rid of politics, highlighting the issue, moving on and getting this done.
I thank the minister. I bumped into him during the week and we had a good chat about what the report contained, an action plan, and what his moves will be. This is all about me holding the government to account saying, ‘Get this report out and talk to people’. That is what it is all about. Let us get the politics out of it and look after the residents of Johnston, especially Millner and Rapid Creek Road; let us do this together.
I would talk to the experts, talk to the Rapid Creek Landcare Group. We have always said works need to be done, let us do them together. When you talk to the experts, talk to the Rapid Creek Landcare Group and ask, ‘How do we do this sensitively? This is the work that needs to be done, how do we do something we can all agree to?’ Let us get the issue sorted. This is about families, not about you, Chief Minister and not about me. This is about the families of Millner and those who live along Rapid Creek. Thank you.
Motion negatived.
MOTION
Gas to Gove
Gas to Gove
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I move that this Assembly:
1. condemns the actions of Chief Minister Adam Giles in reneging on the gas to Gove deal which has plunged Nhulunbuy and the northeast Arnhem Land region into a crisis that remains unresolved
2. calls on the Chief Minister to update this Assembly on actions he has taken to repair the Territory’s relationship with Rio Tinto and to lobby for the refinery to stay operational
3. calls on the Chief Minister to visit Nhulunbuy before the end of this year to explain to families and businesses what social and economic impact analysis has occurred and to fully disclose what it shows.
This is an incredibly serious situation my electorate finds itself in. We condemn the actions of the Chief Minister, whose mishandling of the whole gas to Gove issue is at the centre of this deepening crisis we see in Gove now. Things have taken a turn for the worse in the last couple of days.
We know the actions of the Chief Minister are in train with what is a dysfunctional and chaotic government in crisis, but when you start dragging Territorians into that crisis – thanks to the incompetence of the government – I am deeply and gravely concerned, as are the people of the wider Gove region. We are talking about thousands of people. It is not just the township of Nhulunbuy where Rio Tinto has its operations; it is about the impacts on the wider region that will flow on to the Territory and, indeed, the national economy.
Gove has been in limbo for months. It will be about two years at the start of next year since the company decided to divest its unprofitable sites and package them up into a single company called Pacific Aluminium. There were a number of assets, which included the Gove alumina refinery. Amongst those assets was the only bauxite mine, and it is a very high grade ore.
People in the community were rattled about what the future might hold when they made that announcement. Under the new brand of Pacific Aluminium, a huge effort was launched to try to turn the company around. This included reaching at least a cost neutral position in a resources market where the alumina prices were going down and operating costs were going up.
One of the critical things, as we all know, was the need for the refinery and its operations – being the generator of power for the whole of the Gove peninsula – to be able to convert their power station from a heavy fuel oil source of energy to gas. It is cleaner, cheaper and something that would deliver long-term sustainability and viability. It is far more environmentally friendly, not only for the reduction in emissions but for the risks it would minimise by being able to pipe in gas as opposed to shipping, as they have done for 40 years, with big tankers every six weeks from Kuwait carrying sizeable loads of heavy fuel oil . Post-election, the need to convert to gas ramped up considerably because, after the election, it was taken to the new CLP government in the Northern Territory.
For the first time, the company was saying that without converting to gas it would have to consider curtailment of refinery operations. That was the very first time that language had been used, with the worst case scenario of not converting to gas and, because of their rising costs and considerable accumulated losses, it would need to consider curtailment of the refinery operations.
That certainly rattled people. The Chief Minister at the time, the member for Blain, quite apart from leading a new government and being a new Chief Minister, had an awful lot to deal with. There was a lot happening at the end of last year: cuts to public servant numbers, mini-budgets, slashing millions of dollars; basically upsetting an awful lot of people in the Northern Territory and then having to deal with a crisis in Gove with a company desiring to convert to gas and calling upon the Northern Territory to assist it in that process.
It was a very long and difficult road for the member for Blain; I am sure he remembers it vividly. There was a lot of hard work and a lot of travel. I was critical of him at the time in that I believe he was slow to act and people in Gove were very anxious.
However, he did travel the world, he knocked on doors; he was under an awful lot of pressure to act. The result was that in February – I cannot remember now whether it was the 11th or 13th – there was an announcement from the Chief Minister who advised he had consulted with his Cabinet and had arrived at a decision that gas could be made available to Gove. With that certainty and the fact he was prepared to take what is manageable risk, on the strength of that decision there was enormous relief in the region; people made decisions about their lives and their livelihoods. People decided to buy houses, to invest further in their businesses and said, ‘I will not have to look for a job elsewhere. We will be able to stay here,’ and made other decisions.
Although the mining company people may have made decisions, those who are the more mobile part of the community, having chosen to stay in Nhulunbuy, also made financial decisions about their lives: whether they might take a holiday, purchase a property, all of those sorts of things. Rio Tinto, or Pacific Aluminium as it was at that time, also made decisions about its business based on that gas deal having been announced. They invested considerably; they invested millions to undertake studies as to how the engineering would look around converting the steam power station from being heavy fuel fired to gas fired. They invested heavily in preparations around a gas pipeline that would transport gas from Katherine, parallel to the Central Arnhem Road, the nearly 700 km into Nhulunbuy. Everything was proceeding around the EIS for the gas pipeline; consultations were held along the corridor that the gas pipeline would be running through.
A large amount of that work had previously been undertaken when Gas to Gove was looked at a number of years before. The EIS was undertaken, completed and signed off. There were so many things lining up, but we had very bad news on 26 July, a Friday, Darwin Show Day. It was a public holiday in Nhulunbuy, and an announcement came from the Chief Minister to say he was reneging on the Gas to Gove deal. He was not offering 300 PJ of gas, as had been previously committed, but rather there would be 175 PJ of gas and the mining company would need to source the additional fuel required and whether that would be a dual fuel option. There was no real explanation other than he disagreed with the former Chief Minister about risk. Quite contrary to what the Chief Minister had to say, it certainly was not a win-win and was certainly not a better offer. This announcement was the turning point from which everything hinged because that was the day that was the beginning of a spiralling disaster that has taken us to the place we are in today. We condemn the action of the Chief Minister in making that announcement on 26 July.
There is some doubt amongst people who wonder if he made that decision on his own or if it went to a full briefing of Cabinet: whether the Chief Minister had taken certain advice and gone off under his own steam to make that announcement, rather than with the whole Cabinet behind it.
Talking of the risk associated with gas to Gove – I have quoted it previously – the member for Blain broke ranks with his party wing and produced an opinion piece for the NT News on 8 August. This gave some comfort to people in Nhulunbuy. They felt the member for Blain was genuine in his efforts and the fact he went out on a limb to support the view he took. I am aware that people really appreciated that. I will quote some of it:
- Much of the current discussion is trapped within the context of danger and risk reduction; to prosecute this argument Gove and Rio are cast as threats to the rest of the Territory.
This is the wrong approach not only does it divide the Territory but it accentuates danger and diminishes opportunity.
That statement says an awful lot, and this has certainly been an incredibly divisive issue. I have not had the time to check social media or listen to talkback radio. The issue is being raised again about the ‘us and them’ attitude between Nhulunbuy and the region and the rest of the Northern Territory, who believe the region’s days are over and the place is full of wealthy miners. ‘Too bad, too sad, your days have ended.’ People think this is, essentially, the attitude of the Northern Territory government and the current Chief Minister.
My motion calls upon the Chief Minister to provide us with an update on the floor of this House regarding what steps he has taken to repair the relationship with Rio Tinto and what steps he has taken to lobby for the refinery to stay operational. There has been no announcement of closure. What Rio Tinto has announced is it is not proceeding with its plans to get gas into Gove and is reviewing its future. Unlike the member for Blain, I have not seen or heard any media releases or Facebook postings that reveal he has been on a plane to London to knock on the door of Rio Tinto and talk with Sam Walsh or the board. I have not seen anywhere that he has been on a plane to talk with gas companies. Some of the messages we have received have been a little mixed between the Australian government and the Northern Territory government.
Pre-election, we had a visit from Hon Ian Macfarlane MP, as he is now, having resumed the role of Minister for Industry in the new Coalition government. He came to Nhulunbuy pre-election and was very clear in saying, ‘You vote for the Coalition government, you vote for Tony Abbott and we will save your town; we will look after you.’ He was most emphatic in that regard. He did return to Gove once he was in government, and, as the Minister for Industry, fronted up to a meeting on 30 September.
It was a curious meeting. We were certainly appreciative he had come to Nhulunbuy and met with a fairly large group of people. Sadly, it was not advertised as a public meeting so it was just people who managed to find out it was on or people who had been invited who attended. Minister Macfarlane had the Chief Minister sitting alongside him. They had met at the airport having come from different directions. He told us that on the 10 minute drive into Nhulunbuy, in the back seat of the car, he had given the Chief Minister a briefing and told him he had secured the 300 PJ of gas; that is what he came to announce on 30 September. He said he wanted to deliver that message in person. That was his commitment and he would not let us down.
We found it really strange it would occur like that. Why did the Chief Minister not know about this until he got to Gove and had a briefing on the back seat of the car? Things did not quite gel. We have seen the efforts from others; we are not convinced we have seen the efforts from the Chief Minister in committing to try to resolve this issue. Now that we are in this crisis, what lobbying is he doing to convince Rio Tinto to keep its refinery operational? The reality is the Chief Minister is simply out of his depth. The member for Blain, as Chief Minister, did everything he could in a far more mature and statesmanlike way. These are qualities we do not see in the Chief Minister. It is not just me saying this. There are a number of people who have commented that they believe our current Chief Minister is not quite up to the mark, there is something a bit amateurish about the way he operates and he is a little out of his depth.
Pacific Aluminium was given no notice of the announcement on 26 July or of the media release that followed. I know that to be a fact. If the Chief Minister wants to say otherwise, be it on his head. I know for a fact they did not know that announcement was coming out. What message does that send to people and companies wanting to do business in the Northern Territory when a government and a Chief Minister you believe you have a deal with, you are working with for economic benefits, jobs, all sorts of benefits, makes an announcement and does not tell the company they are making it? It says, ‘We are not open for business’. It says you cannot trust the CLP government. It says, ‘We are amateurs’. To send those messages to the corporate world is frightening. This is how the Chief Minister treats the single largest private employer in the Northern Territory and people in Nhulunbuy – business owners, residents, the workers at the refinery, the mine operations and the traditional owners – and that is appalling.
I was shocked to see a media release from the Chief Minister – I apologise, I do not have it in front of me – a couple of months ago which grew from the fact Pacific Aluminium had decided not to divest that particular asset. It brought them back into the Rio Tinto fold, and Pacific Aluminium no longer exists per se. There had been an internal communication to their workforce at the Gove site from the site manager, Ryan Cavanagh, that said the company was reviewing its options, given the gas deal had been reneged upon, and could not rule out curtailment of refinery operations, but it was one of a number of things it was looking at.
The Chief Minister issued a media release accusing Rio Tinto of scaring its employees. What business is it of the Chief Minister who created this crisis to then make commentary on an internal communication the manager of Rio Tinto at the Gove operation chooses to send to his workforce? I was not alone in finding it extraordinary to accuse the company of scaring its employees when the reality was the only person scaring its employees, and everybody else in the region, was the Chief Minister with his inept handling of this whole affair.
It will take a lot longer to repair the relationship with the people of the region, so many of who are very unforgiving of the Chief Minister’s role in this crisis and the fact his willingness to communicate openly and honestly with people has been lacking. People have really wanted to hear from him firsthand. He has come out on a couple of occasions, and I am delighted he is coming on Friday and a public meeting will be held at Nhulunbuy Town Hall between 10.30 am and 12.30 pm. I understand that will be followed by a meeting with the regional economic development committee. Given the Chief Minister wants me to be part of the solution, I look forward to my invitation to sit in on the regional economic development committee.
________________
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: If I could ask you to pause, member for Nhulunbuy. I would like to welcome to the gallery the Indian Cultural Society of the NT visiting Parliament House this evening. To Alex Mohan, president and committee members, welcome. I hope you enjoy your time here.
Members: Hear, hear!
________________
Ms WALKER: I am looking forward to the Chief Minister coming to Nhulunbuy on Friday for what I believe will be the first open public meeting. People in Gove are incredibly worried. They are good, decent, honest and hard-working people and they have a right to hear what the Chief Minister and Rio Tinto have to say. If I have not already said it I will say it now, of course Rio Tinto are in this mix and people are angry with them. I have my moments when I am a little angry about the way they have operated. I am disappointed it is no longer Pacific Aluminium, which was a stand-alone organisation. Pacific Aluminium, as a stand-alone organisation, had different protocols as to how it operated because it was its own company, even under the umbrella of Rio Tinto. It had a Facebook page. It issued media releases. It was easy to communicate with; there were ‘go to’ people within the local community I could pick up a phone and speak to. Those communications are harder under Rio Tinto. It is not as open and communicative as people would like it to be.
We look forward to the meeting on Friday. I accept the reality of the company having to make commercial decisions based on a continued deterioration of market conditions. However, the Chief Minister, in this saga and particularly in the last few days, seems to have had a fairly hands-off type of approach. We look forward to him coming to Nhulunbuy. His hands-off approach reminds me of something the Tourism minister said yesterday morning during Question Time when I reminded him he had done nothing to avert the recent closure of the Qantas travel centre in Nhulunbuy. He replied, ‘That is right. We did nothing. It was a commercial decision. Nothing to do with the government.’ That seems to be the attitude of this saga around gas to Gove. ‘It is nothing to do with us. It is a commercial decision.’ There are many people who see it very differently.
Some of the communication we have had from the Chief Minister was meant to reassure people when it arrived in letter boxes. We do not have post boxes at individual residences in Nhulunbuy. All mail comes to the post office, so on a single day – it actually came in over a couple of days – people were picking up this newsletter. There was an awful lot of them stacked in the rubbish bins outside of the post office, I might add. We have a four-page newsletter that came from the Chief Minister stating he stands firm on gas to Gove. What struck people about this was not so much what he said, but what he did not say. Why was there no mention of the 300 PJ committed to by minister Macfarlane? People were saying, ‘What do you think that means? Remember when he came here on 30 September?’
This is what started ringing alarm bells. To comment on the editorial, who in their right mind releases a column that touts, ‘Business confidence growing in the Territory’ into an incredibly depressed community, one that has been for more than a year? People were disgusted with that. What sort of news is that to give to people in Nhulunbuy, in northeast Arnhem Land where business confidence has plunged in the last 18 months or so? We will treasure that newsletter and will be interested to see if the $13m upgrade to the Gove hospital accident and emergency also progresses, given we have a population that will shrink and there will not be the demand for hospital services there might otherwise have been.
We are pleased he is coming on Friday. I understand the member for Katherine is coming as well. This is good, and so he should because he has avoided the region. He has travelled extensively with his portfolios into Asia. That is good and so he should; if government ministers are not travelling and talking up the Northern Territory and business, they are not doing their jobs.
However, what people bitterly resent is that, in their own back yard – a one-hour flight from Darwin if you are on Qantas, a little longer if you are on Airnorth – there has been a community and a mining company struggling, and not a sign of the member for Katherine. There has not been a sign of him since he came in February ready to take the pats on the back with the then Chief Minister and shake a few hands. We have not seen hide nor hair of him since then and that is incredibly disappointing. Talk up business overseas, attract investors, but do not just drop the largest private employer and a region along with it. That is devastating for people.
We would have liked to have heard the news of the Chief Minister’s visit on Friday earlier. People want to know, and we want him to explain to families, businesses and traditional owners what social and economic impact analysis has occurred and to fully disclose what it shows. I hope this body of work has been done; it should have been done, but there are many people who are not convinced. One of the things that has concerned me has been, over the months, what appears to be an over reliance on the little old East Arnhem Chamber of Commerce.
It is a hard-working chapter of the Chamber of Commerce. It is very active in the business community, lobbying and assisting local businesses, but I believe there has been a reliance on it being asked to conduct a survey of your membership and ask what the impacts are. When it was last asked to do that, I said, ‘Why did you not ask the government to just check the one that had been done previously’? There is also a reliance on the regional economic development committee. It is a key consultative group, a good cross section of people and stakeholders representing the region, but it should not be asked to conduct a survey and a review to come up with the solutions as to where the region might go and what opportunities there may be. It needs to be part of that discussion; they are the people who live there and have access to the best information, as well as many years of knowledge, but everybody is of the view that nothing has gone further than that. I hope the Chief Minister will show us otherwise when he comes to Nhulunbuy on Friday. We have to remember this is not just about the township of Nhulunbuy; it is about the wider region. It is about repercussions that will be felt around the Northern Territory.
We are talking about the potential loss of an annual $500m to the Northern Territory economy. Pacific Aluminium has detailed what its contribution is to the Northern Territory: the $500m in export earnings; the fact that in 2012, Pacific Aluminium, or Rio Tinto, spent $170m on goods and services with 89 local and Territory businesses – that is significant expenditure – the fact it has also delivered $76m in royalties over the previous five years. When I talked earlier about its investment, it was proposing to invest $1.2bn to upgrade existing infrastructure associated with gas conversion. That $1.2bn investment would also have seen the construction of a 600 km pipeline. This had been surveyed, the EIS completed and would have employed hundreds of people. I was briefed about how it would work as they moved along the track, moving camps and the employment opportunities it would bring for Indigenous people and for Territorians.
All of that investment seems to have counted for nothing here. In terms of the social and economic impact analysis, it is critical this very robust body of work is undertaken – not a survey from a Chamber of Commerce – and that it be undertaken by experts to understand what the future holds. This is why the opposition has urged the Chief Minister to appoint highly qualified experts, people who understand industry, demographics and economics. We have suggested qualified experts like Dr Will Sanders from ANU who has previously done work in the Northern Territory, and Professor Ciaran O’Faircheallaigh from Griffith University. Why not engage experts such as these gentlemen to investigate social and economic impacts and develop options for the region’s future? This would assist to inform a structural adjustment package.
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I request the member be given an extension of time.
Motion agreed to
Ms WALKER: Thank you, member for Barkly and Madam Speaker. People need to be convinced that this body of work has been done. We need to look at what the future options are beyond mining should the refinery options curtail, and we know they intend to continue to export bauxite. We need to look at those future options, but what people want to look at right now is a structural adjustment package. What does it mean for the community that will shrink from a population of 4000 to 1500? What will it mean in terms of what happens to all these people who are losing their jobs amongst the Rio Tinto workforce? I am aware because I have been speaking to people today who are already talking about the potential for redeployment to other Rio Tinto sites, packages where people may choose to depart the company’s employment, relocation, all of those types of factors.
However, what people need to understand is what it will be like in the worst case scenario. What will it be like in three months or six months? People have already been through a period of worrying around this time last year and, in the lead up to Christmas – school has a couple of weeks to go. Christmas and New Year is typically the time of year when families anywhere may choose to pack up and move on. I do not think it is fair to put people through another three-month period of, ‘We are doing a review and we will let you know’.
We are calling on the Chief Minister and the government to release the study. The Chief Minister says there is a plan so we want to see it. We want to see what a structural adjustment package would look like. We want to understand what level of lobbying he is doing with the Australian government and to have something in place and visible for people so we know what we are dealing with by 31 December. That is not unreasonable.
Government has a role to play in this space. We look at the experiences of places like Geelong or Wollongong in recent years, where major industry has withdrawn and the Australian government – or the Victorian or New South Wales governments, depending on which place – have been involved in looking to the future, restructuring. People want to know what will happen since they bought a house, maybe two houses if they are business owners, on the strength of a decision made in February; their business will be lucky to survive. Nobody will want to buy the houses they have bought, let alone their business. These are the things people need to know about.
Towards the last part of my contribution, I want to talk about the impacts on a very human and personal level for some, because they are significant. I especially feel for business owners during this period. It has been heartbreaking, an incredibly tough time, stressful and this downturn has really turned people’s lives on their heads. If they are trying to save money the first thing they do is cut jobs, but to keep their doors open, essentially, business owners are picking up the additional hours themselves. I know our local newsagency has had a heck of a time. The business was burnt out a couple of years ago and they invested considerable money to refurbish the newsagency. And it is much more than a newsagency; they retail all manner of goods. The people who own that newsagency would very much like to retire; it was their plan that they would be in retirement right now but they are not. They are working seven days a week and their retirement is nowhere to be seen, because nobody wants to buy their business now. They continue to work until they see some sign of hope on the horizon, whatever that might be.
Our bakery, Gove Peninsula Bakery, has been operating under a couple who bought it about two years ago. They have had a heck of a time running this bakery, but they provide a brilliant service to our community. What small country town does not have a good bakery with sandwiches, pies, pastries, iced coffee, soft drinks and good coffee? They have worked hard to build this business, and just prior to the 26 July announcement from the Chief Minister, they were given the opportunity by the owners of the building to purchase it and were seriously thinking about it. They decided this was the place for them, the business was doing well, and they were doing the numbers around long-term leases versus purchasing the building, which has additional space that could be leased to others. It sounded like a good prospect. They were thinking about that; however, the announcement came on 26 July and I spoke to the owner of the business a little while after. He just shook his head and said, ‘I am so glad we did not proceed to purchase the building because it would have ruined us’.
What about the operators of the Arnhem Early Learning Centre? It has been in existence since 2008, so we have two childcare centres. We have one that is a community based not-for-profit, and we have the Arnhem Early Learning Centre, which is for profit and an excellent organisation. They have basically had to put off all their cleaning staff and in the evenings it is the owners – two or three families own this business – doing the cleaning for the centre to save money.
I worry about the long-term contractor in town, Manfield Colair, which does all the electrical contracting for Rio Tinto. Col Manfield has invested heavily in Nhulunbuy. He owns a number of houses where he can house his employees. If the refinery operations are curtailed there will be no need for a sizeable electrical contracting workforce; what will he do with the real estate he owns? Here again is a gentleman wanting to retire yet finds himself in this scenario.
What about YBE? It is a company that is a couple of years older than the mining company, formed and owned wholly by the clans of the region, which receives no government grants, never has, and returns dividends to and employs traditional owners. It is a contractor that provides a lot of services to Rio Tinto. During the squeeze that has been on for the last 18 months or so, YBE have had to diversify. YBE has done a great job, under Glenn Aitchison and chairman of its board Dangatanga Gondarra, to diversify its contracting. However, the investment YBE has made into plant and equipment – where does it leave a business owned by the clans of the region?
There are a number of businesses I worry about. I cannot talk about all of them, but I heard John Tourish, proprietor of the Walkabout Lodge on radio yesterday morning. John has invested heavily in the region, is a good businessman, a good local community man, and I daresay John would probably like to be thinking about his retirement as well, but I do not imagine that is on the cards at the moment.
You can buy a house, but you cannot sell one in Nhulunbuy at the moment. I have a friend who announced to me a few weeks ago that he and his wife had purchased a house as a great investment, and he was confident the future was bright; I imagine he would be devastated. I know the young woman who set up and runs East Arnhem Real Estate is incredibly frustrated and feels deeply for the clients she represents in trying to sell houses. Imagine how those people feel, on the strength of confidence in February, who purchased houses. What about traditional owners, where are they in this scenario? They will still have royalties from bauxite production, but the economic opportunities will be reduced dramatically should we see this worst case scenario eventuate.
I know the Gumatj Association and Bunuwal have sought economic opportunities and businesses, and it is great they are standing on their own feet. However, should the refinery operations curtail, that diminishes their opportunities considerably. I know mineral exploration is occurring around the region, and that is great; I hope we find more minerals to be mined. We have a deep water port, we have the infrastructure, and we must look to those future opportunities.
What about the clubs? What about the tennis club that, in the last couple of years, has invested more than $60 000 in upgrading its courts? What about the BMX club that just had its 30th anniversary and has also invested in its club? What about the surf club, which has recently opened a new building, after years of fundraising and government money in there as well? What about the future of government services? What will happen to the hospital, which caters for a region and a large population? If the population shrinks from 4000 to 1500 in the township alone, will we still have a full complement of health services? Where will all the nurses and teachers who are married to Rio Tinto workers go? They will be leaving town. What about other services? What about Qantas and Airnorth? Will we see daily flights continue in and out of Gove? I think not. What about Toll Marine’s barge? Will we see that in weekly? I do not think so.
The Chief Minister has an awful lot to answer for. We condemn him soundly for his actions and look forward to seeing him in Nhulunbuy and hearing what he has to say. Thank you.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Speaker, I support my colleague, but I also want to speak about the situation in Gove and Rio Tinto. The latest news coming from Rio Tinto regarding the Gove refinery is not only disappointing, it is also a cause of concern for all Territorians. This decision is multidimensional and has far more implications than have been raised in this House and in the media. The CLP government is saying it was a commercial decision by Rio Tinto. Let us see what constitutes a commercial decision. Rio Tinto, like every other company, has a right to make a profit, and it tries to make a profit. The profit it makes is the difference between the cost of production, the taxes it pays and the income from the sale of its product, in this case, alumina. In the course of production, the following is included: labour, processing, transport and other associated costs.
Rio Tinto has advised that the production costs are high and the product price on the international market has dropped. One of the most important factors in processing is the cost of fuel for the processing of bauxite to alumina, which is a power hungry process. The Northern Territory government does not have much to do with the price of alumina on the world markets or the value of the Australian dollar, but there is something this government could and should have done about the provision of an alternative fuel to Rio Tinto; in its attempt to cut processing costs, the company examined the option to change the fuel for processing from bunker oil to gas.
Let us not forget that a few years ago, Rio Tinto went through a massive reconstruction of its plant in Nhulunbuy, which saw it spending millions of dollars on the town and totally reconfiguring the refinery. It continued to use bunker fuel and was still expensive to run.
Rio Tinto twice came to us when we were in government and gave us some advice – a very clear picture of what the problem was with the refinery in Nhulunbuy. I believe it did the same thing after the election in 2012, when it advised the CLP government of problems with the processing of bauxite to alumina in Nhulunbuy, and the options it had to consider. I am using the term Rio Tinto here, but it was Pacific Aluminium, which was a subsidiary of Rio Tinto. Rio Tinto was the original parent company.
The then Chief Minster, Paul Henderson, provided Rio Tinto with a letter of comfort, in essence, informing the company that gas could be provided to Rio from the Power and Water contract. Following the election, the then Chief Minister, Terry Mills, also provided Rio with a letter this year, offering to supply them with 300 PJ of gas. Unfortunately, following the Japan coup, the current Chief Minister, Adam Giles, unilaterally cancelled that offer, downgrading it to 195 PJ then further downgrading it to a 175 PJ mixture of gas and oil.
Everybody knows the future of Gove or Nhulunbuy is clearly connected to Rio Tinto, the mine and the refinery. Rio has signed another lease for 40-plus years to mine bauxite and will continue to mine bauxite as per its recent announcement. What is in doubt is the refinery.
It is obvious that while Paul Henderson and Terry Mills showed leadership and bypassed the extremely conservative advice of government departments at the time, because they realised what the effects of the decision by Rio Tinto to close the refinery would be – making 1500 people redundant – the current Chief Minister followed departmental advice blindly, which has resulted in the current situation. I am surprised about that because the Chief Minister sometimes shows signs of leadership. However, in this case, he had the wool pulled over his eyes by the department, which we all know is very conservative. It would find any excuse if it did not want something to be done – a clear example of a Yes Minister comedy, but this is not a comedy, this is a tragedy.
Let us look at some of these issues; let us look at the issue of gas. The Chief Minister said, ‘If we give gas to Rio, the Northern Territory will run out of gas, the price of electricity will go up. There will be problems with gas availability,’ and so on. Is this accurate? I recently met with a number of oil and gas companies and was surprised because it was the first time I had heard oil and gas company executives being so vocal about a government decision. Usually, they have been very sensitive and politically correct in their statements. This time, they clearly stated to me the decision by Terry Mills was the right one, but the decision by Adam Giles was the wrong one.
First of all, they said there is enough gas in the Territory to be provided to Rio, and if the current government had chosen to give 300 PJ from the Power and Water contract, there was no problem with a lack of gas for Power and Water in the future, and they described why. They said, first of all, they could have bought some stranded gas fields from offshore, connected them to the network and brought them onshore to provide the extra gas. They also said we can easily utilise and have a formal agreement with the current LNG producers in Darwin or future producers to provide the extra gas.
The companies also said, ‘We can easily utilise and have a formal agreement with the current LNG producers in Darwin, our future energy producers, to provide gas to Nhulunbuy, and in exchange they will provide a volume of gas to the customers of LNG producers in Japan or anywhere in the world’. It happens in other parts of the world; they could not see any reason why this could not happen here. This is the advice we received and it is the correct advice. There was no problem providing gas to Nhulunbuy; there would not be any deficit of gas for Power and Water. In contrast, this would accelerate exploration for oil and gas in the Territory because if companies knew that in 10 years’ time they had to provide a significant amount of gas to Nhulunbuy, they would accelerate spending in onshore exploration in the Northern Territory.
I know very well the Chief Minister is aware of it because I have information that one of his members stated exactly the same when she was in the same meeting with me. I am aware that member was quite strong with her advice to the Chief Minister. The other question I have is about the previous Chief Minister providing a letter of comfort to Rio. I believe that constitutes a contract. I am aware Rio has chosen not to pursue any legal issues with that letter, for its own reasons, but that again leaves the Territory exposed.
Rio operates a mine and a refinery. Any closure will have a severe impact on the town; 1500 people will lose their jobs. That means people will have to find other jobs, there are not many jobs available in Nhulunbuy, so they will have to go somewhere else. What about the people who provide services to the refinery? They have to shed jobs. What about the people using services in the town? The people who provide those services also have to shed jobs. What will the impact of 1500 people moving out of town have on, for example, primary schools, high schools or the hospital? Will the hospital be downgraded? What would be the cost to government? If the hospital was downgraded, every person who has a case in Nhulunbuy would have to be medivaced to Darwin; they would have to be sent to, treated in and hospitalised in Darwin. The impact will be severe. Who will maintain the services in the town? Is Rio willing to provide the same level of services to the town? All it will do is turn around and say to the current government, ‘Well, here is Nhulunbuy, it is now your town, you maintain it’. What will happen to the housing stock? Much of the housing stock is owned by the government. What will happen to that? What will happen to the capital investment of people who chose to buy property, a business or a house in Nhulunbuy? There is a domino effect from a single action of a company resulting from the inaction of the Territory government.
The Chief Minister keeps talking about Indigenous development and I praise him for it. To avoid and overcome the current problems in Indigenous communities, we need to have economic activities in these communities. Nhulunbuy is a community where there are Indigenous interests, Indigenous businesses heavily relying on Rio and its operations. What will happen to these companies? What will happen to the Indigenous people who have been working for these Indigenous enterprises that have been servicing Rio? What will be the training and employment opportunities for Indigenous people now Rio is going to close or mothball the refinery, as the member for Port Darwin stated today on television?
If gas was provided to Rio Tinto, a pipeline had to be built from the central pipeline to Nhulunbuy. That pipeline would provide gas to the refinery but would also be able to provide gas to communities along the route. This would replace very expensive diesel power generation with cheaper provision by gas; it would have more benefits by providing a solution to Rio.
Another problem is the question of sovereign risk in the Territory; when a foreign investor wants to make an investment in a country, one would think they would look at sovereign risk. They want to find out if their investment will be sound and secure, irrespective of the government in power and irrespective of any change of government. Investors accept that governments change, especially in state democracies like Australia. One day, one government of a certain political persuasion is in place, next there is a change. We had a situation where there was no change of government per se; there was not Labor out, Liberal in, there was a Country Liberal Party where the only thing that changed was the leadership. This was the way they managed their own business. However, when the new leader came in, he immediately overturned, unilaterally, a decision made by his predecessor of the same political persuasion in the same government. How can an investor have trust and faith in a Northern Territory government when a change of leader of the same government changed the rules of the game? This is a serious concern for all Territorians.
The Chief Minister presented a statement to this House a couple of days ago about what he did in Asia; that was great, Chief Minister. The problem is that today, Xinhua, the biggest Chinese newsagency, reported a story about Rio and it is considering closing the refinery because the Northern Territory government did not provide gas.
The Australian Mining Review today announced that closing the refinery is expected to cost the Northern Territory government $400m. This news is circulating widely in Australia and the world. Do you think many investors would seriously consider investing in the Northern Territory when they are not sure their investment would be safe and secure? I doubt it very much.
The member for Port Darwin was reported as saying today that Rio is considering mothballing the refinery. They may mothball it, but in saying that he may as well have said, ‘We are closing it down’. This kind of structure, this kind of processing plant is not mothballed because technology changes so quickly there will be not much point in opening again in four or five years’ time because there will be different ways of producing alumina much more cheaply. That refinery will not be mothballed; it will be closed for business.
I know the Chief Minister wants to be remembered as the first Indigenous Chief Minister in Australia. Unfortunately, because of his action or inaction, he will be remembered as the first Territory Chief Minister who destroyed a town in the Northern Territory.
Ms LAWRIE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I am waiting for the Chief Minister to respond in some way to this important motion. I hope he does because it is a matter of grave concern to us, the approach he has personally taken as Chief Minister to the issue of the economic viability of the township of Nhulunbuy and the region. This motion is to say, very directly, ‘Take the responsibility of Chief Minister seriously’. The responsibility as the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory is to advocate for the benefit and betterment of Territorians.
In economic and social terms, advocating strongly for the operation of the refinery in Nhulunbuy should have been utmost on the agenda of the Northern Territory Chief Minister. However, while we saw action and activity in this space, every effort undertaken to secure the best possible outcome for the refinery operations in Nhulunbuy from the member for Blain when he was Chief Minister, we have seen a very stark contrast of inaction from the member for Braitling. That has been a matter of great concern and sadness to us because, ultimately, we realised the consequences of inaction from the member for Braitling were so dire to so many Territorians living in Nhulunbuy in the northeast Arnhem region. Actions such as leaving no stone unturned – when you compare and contrast; I am not standing here as the number one fan of the member for Blain, but I will always acknowledge effort where I see effort with good intention. The efforts – with good intention – undertaken by the then Country Liberal Party Chief Minister, the member for Blain, through the first what I call ‘phase’, of the Nhulunbuy crisis post-October last year, when Pacific Aluminium announced a review into its operations, were consistent: task force formed, visiting the region, visiting the township, engaging with businesses, engaging with the industry, engaging with and understanding the oil and gas producers, explorers and the potential.
It was a difficult several months because I believed the time lines going into the following year of 2013 were causing grave concern to the residents of Nhulunbuy. I had hoped they would understand the opportunity a gas to Gove deal presented in doubling the domestic gas market in the Northern Territory and the opportunity that presented major exploration companies such as Santos and ENI.
It took a while for the then CLP government to get to. Some of the earlier rhetoric was somewhat misleading and alarmist about why we needed to secure our future energy, despite the fact we had gas through to 2032 and they were looking at a reduction of a few years. Major explorers Santos and ENI were saying, ‘We have the capacity and potential and if you sign this, we will go hard,’ because gas is not produced unless there is a market to sell it to, as the costs are so high.
We saw no stone left unturned by the then Chief Minister, the member for Blain and ultimately, a press release saying, ‘Deal is done’; we saw that too and, in good faith, believed it. In good faith, the residents of Nhulunbuy believed it; in good faith, the residents of the region believed it. Business people went ahead and made decisions based on that. I have met business people in Nhulunbuy who made decisions to buy an additional house because they were bringing in additional staff and needed to house them. These are not insignificant decisions; these are decisions that run to millions of dollars following that announcement in early 2013. The traditional owners, in good faith, continued negotiations with Pacific Aluminium, ultimately back to Rio Tinto, about the gas pipeline and the route. These were not insignificant bodies of work, done by the traditional owners along the route, by the Northern Land Council and the company itself, running to tens of millions of dollars in expenditure as well.
I met with traditional owners along the route. They were actively and genuinely engaged in this entire process and starting to discuss among themselves the regional economic development opportunities of a gas pipeline. I had an understanding of what that meant in practical terms, having seen the opportunities, training and jobs from the construction of the pipeline to link Wadeye to Darwin for Blacktip gas to come to market for Power and Water. There were significant opportunities as well as, obviously, royalty payments for the traditional owners.
This was all done in good faith. The town geared back up, not rapidly, but confidence was definitely restored, businesses were making business decisions with confidence renewed in the future of the refinery.
The announcement by the now Chief Minister, the member for Braitling, on a Friday public holiday – Darwin Show Day – when the residents of Nhulunbuy were enjoying a Northern Territory public holiday without a show – we all know what many residents in Nhulunbuy do; they go fishing, so they were not necessarily near their radios. That announcement on show day signalled a very loud alarm bell for me. We have heard the member for Casuarina talk about what it does to sovereign risk to renege on a deal with a multinational and revise it arbitrarily. To announce it on a public holiday showed a level of dismissal, a level of failing to understand the gravity of the situation and showed a level of political contempt I had not seen before. I had seen some things I felt appalled about in those months of the CLP government, but not quite to that extent, and to then see the responsible Chief Minister not go to Nhulunbuy, and not have the meetings that ought to have been held was incredibly disturbing. I have often thought of what the first leaders of other jurisdictions, such as Premiers and Chief Ministers, do when there is a grave industrial concern affecting hundreds, if not thousands of jobs. They dig into the trenches and fight for the people, the jobs and the industry; you see it in Geelong and South Australia with car manufacturing, and it in Tasmania with the forestry industry. They do everything it takes and leave no stone unturned to fight for the industry, jobs and the wellbeing of the people of the region.
That has not been the behaviour of this Chief Minister; he has been arrogant, dismissive, looking to blame anyone else and has not accepted responsibility for his part. It is not solely his part; we understand that. We understand Rio Tinto has made a commercial decision; we have been watching the alumina price. However, what we do not understand, Chief Minister, is the way you have been so arrogantly dismissive of the township’s situation and the issues that will be created for the region in the event of a closure and mothballing of the refinery which your colleague, the member for Port Darwin, precipitously announced to the media today. How incredibly extraordinary!
It has been your actions, Chief Minister, that have shown us you are simply not up to this job; you have not behaved as a leader. You have been off on your own flights of fancy, wherever you have wanted to go to do the good news stories, rather than the hard, heavy lifting to represent the interests of thousands of Territorians. We are not exaggerating when we say thousands; there are about 1500 jobs directly at stake and there are thousands more at stake indirectly. It is about a $500m contribution to the Territory economy. There are businesses in Nhulunbuy directly affected – small businesses, medium-sized businesses – by any closure of the refinery, as are the transport and freight businesses. Have you had a conversation with Airnorth about its business? There are businesses in Winnellie and Berrimah which downstream and supply to the businesses in Nhulunbuy and the region. The magnitude of the reverberating effects of this is enormous.
From the outset, Labor has been consistently calling for the Chief Minister to provide an economic and social impact analysis on the potential closure of the refinery. Here we are, six months down the track from that July announcement, with no analysis; if there is one, it is still hidden. We hear vague mutterings of a plan B, but no detail. Surely, Territorians have the right to be fully informed of the effects of decisions such as these. Surely, they have the right to expect their government to have been employing experts in the field to understand the economic and social impacts. If you have done the work, release the information. However, we have only vague mutterings of plan B.
Chief Minister, when you are in Nhulunbuy on Friday – we are glad you are going, it is the very least you could do – at the public meeting at the town hall, provide them with copies of the economic and social impact analysis because it is their livelihoods you are talking about. It is the families of Nhulunbuy and the region whose livelihoods are being affected; they need to know because they will be making decisions in their lives about how to deal with it. At the very least, you need to inform them of what you know. We have gone out with the news there will not be a conversion to gas and stated that work should commence immediately on what a structural adjustment package would look like, if required.
We have not gone down the path the member for Port Darwin chose today to announce mothballing, but we are saying you must have these contingencies in place if required. The structural adjustment package is the purview primarily of the Commonwealth government; you should be lobbying heavily to make sure resources are applied by the Commonwealth for a thorough and rigorous structural adjustment package. My colleague, the member for Nhulunbuy, today had more constructive suggestions that are flippantly ignored by this government, suggesting two experts in the field to undertake the work of a structural adjustment package. They know the region, they have the qualifications to do the work. Given the amount of mistrust the community has in you, Chief Minister, they may trust independent experts to do the work. People do not trust your word.
You went there with the federal resources minister, Ian Macfarlane, in September when the town was told, ‘It is all good, we have 300 PJ of gas secured, we have saved the town’. It is not at all good; Rio has made a decision not to convert to gas and there is a huge question mark hanging over the refinery. The member for Port Darwin has decided to announce mothballing. What do you know? Respond to us in this Chamber tonight and say whether you have been advised about that or were just making it up on the spot?
At the very least, ensure you go lobby for a structural adjustment package and for the work to be done by independent experts, not some handpicked mates who will do a half-baked job for the right price and not in the interests of the residents of Nhulunbuy or the region. Independent experts are required here. The rigorous structural adjustment package analysis needs to be done by about 31 December at the latest or in the event it is needed. Get on and do the job, but by all means can you stop saying you will dovetail behind Rio and follow Rio? You are the Chief Minister, step up and show some leadership; you should be out in front leading the interests of Territory residents living in Nhulunbuy and living in the region. Step up; you have mishandled this from the start. Seek some sound advice on this now and show some real action for the residents whose livelihoods are in crisis.
I commend this motion, member for Nhulunbuy, and I commend the work you have been doing to speak on behalf of your residents. You have had to take direct personal abuse from this Chief Minister because you are advocating on behalf of your constituents. He has failed to grasp that what you say in here is what residents are saying to you: that you are speaking on behalf of the people who have elected you. I have been there with you in the town, on behalf of people who have previously voted CLP. You failed to grasp that, Chief Minister; start listening to the member for Nhulunbuy, as she knows the people of Nhulunbuy incredibly well. She is highly regarded and respected there. She works across all sectors and is tapped in and in tune. Show some measure of being constructive, albeit at such a late stage.
Mr GILES (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, as much as I do like talking about the situation in Gove and trying to find a response, it is very hard listening to the tone of the Leader of the Opposition. I will not talk for long on this matter; I will provide a couple of corrections. Number one, there was never a gas deal done for Gove; the member for Nhulunbuy is well aware of that. There was a communication put to Rio and it was never accepted, full stop. The same as the gas offer that has been put to Rio in the past. All the gas requirements Rio was seeking have been fulfilled and it has, once again, not accepted the gas options that have been offered. In the past, the mine, in its various formations of other ownerships, has been offered gas, whether it is coming from PNG or from Wadeye with ENI; those offers have not been taken up, the same as the offer for coal in the past was not taken up. We know that; we know there will be decisions made by Rio in the coming days. We are not sure exactly when but I anticipate either by tomorrow or Friday. We will wait and see what that decision is, whether it continues operation or whether it moves towards mothballing, curtailment or otherwise. I ask that the board from Rio travels to Gove to make the decision and informs its employees and the community which it so much relies upon.
This debate was not about Rio, Gove, the residents of Gove or the business people. This was about politics and playing games; that is all it was. I said in Question Time today, ‘If the member for Nhulunbuy is that interested, become part of the solution’. I did say if you want information, call me; I am happy to give you a briefing. I am happy to help you along the way and let you know exactly what is happening. You have not done that. In fact, you and the Leader of the Opposition were offered a briefing by Rio Tinto this afternoon – which you cancelled, saying you did not have time to meet until after Question Time tomorrow – where they were going to tell you of any proposed curtailment plans they have.
You talk about the residents of Nhulunbuy. Rio Tinto, this afternoon, was going to tell you exactly what its plans are, and you and the Leader of the Opposition refused to turn up. That is what it is all about. If you seriously cared you would go and find out what is going on. You did not even care, and you cannot have the briefing before Question Time because it would not allow you to play games at Question Time, and you would actually know what is going on.
You show this feigned indignation that you do not know what is going on. You could have gone to this briefing this afternoon and found out exactly what is happening. However, instead of representing the people of Nhulunbuy, you again play silly games and do not want to be part of the solution to drive change and help the people of Nhulunbuy. There was a perfect opportunity for you to have an understanding of how many houses would be empty after any potential structural change, how many jobs could potentially be lost. What would it mean for small business? What would it mean for the number of students in the schools? You could have had all of this here this afternoon and you would not even take up the opportunity.
I find it disgraceful that you came here with this motion to play the silly games you have been talking about here. You try talking about gas when Rio said gas is not the solution they want to go towards. Rio knows all the gas is there for it if it wants to use it; the company knows that, but it has made a decision on commercial grounds not to take it. We will now wait and see if it wants to continue with the refinery. As I have said many times, we are hoping for the best and planning for the worst. We have our processes in place for what we will do to get behind Rio when it puts together its package of response and support for the residents of Gove and the broader region. All of those things wold have been laid on the table for the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Nhulunbuy. You could not even be bothered turning up to a briefing and you then decided to politicise it all by saying, ‘We are not able to meet before Question Time. We have to do it after Question Time so we can play games in Question Time in parliament.’ It shows your respect for the people of Nhulunbuy.
I have read through this motion. The third part talks about going to Gove. I do what I want to do, but I will go to Gove on Friday, so that meets what is happening in section three. Point number two is about the Chief Minister updating the Assembly on what actions the Territory has taken to repair its relationship with Rio. We continue to meet with Rio; we have been meeting with them all day today and all day yesterday. We meet them on a regular basis, trying to resolve some of these plans. If the member for Nhulunbuy and the Leader of the Opposition wanted to know what was going on, they would have had that meeting this afternoon. They instead chose to play games.
The other part was about condemning the action. You work out what happened, but I will tell you there was never a deal done with the former Chief Minister and Rio Tinto. You should go back to Nhulunbuy and tell the residents you could not be bothered turning up to a meeting with Rio to find out what is happening for the constituents there.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Chief Minister has just shown his true colours. I could not bear to listen to the sheer arrogance, the schoolboy style of his delivery. He cannot escape that; it is the way he is, it is at his core and it is his nature. It is hard to see him ever displaying an attitude which does not speak of arrogance and his complete inability to work in a statesmanlike way.
The Chief Minister sat at the Cabinet table; it was a Cabinet decision. The member for Blain, as Chief Minister, before he was knifed in the back a month later by the member for Braitling – a man driven by blind ambition and arrogance – was around for that Cabinet deal. There was a media release on 13 February, ‘Done Deal to Secure the Future of Gove’. The member for Port Darwin was part of that Cabinet; the member for Araluen and the Mines and Energy minister, the member for Katherine, were also part of that, and when that announcement came out – I do not have Hansard with me – I know the member for Araluen said what a momentous occasion it was that Chief Minister Mills had done this. They had saved Gove and it was fantastic.
It does not gel that the Chief Minister now steps away from that; he stepped away from it on 26 July, and said, ‘There was no deal done. It was way too risky; we were too scared to take that risk. I had different advice and, essentially, we were happy to abandon Gove and leave people to their own devices.’
For the Chief Minister to come swaggering in here and accuse this side of playing politics – his contribution was pathetic. People who know me in my electorate know how hard I have worked and lobbied for them, and what an incredibly difficult period of time it has been in the last 18 months or so. It distresses me enormously that I am locked in this place and not at home in my electorate. I will do anything to get information and learn what is going on. Let us be very clear, I received a call this afternoon from the person in Rio Tinto who I am able to contact periodically. They were checking my availability for a meeting this afternoon or this evening, with the Leader of the Opposition. Given we have GBD, given I have been here on other business, I said, ‘I will get back to you. I am involved in a couple of motions, but I will be free at 9 pm, would that suit?’ She said it was a little too late, and I said, ‘I will get back to you. I just need to check with my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition.’ I checked my calendar.
The Chief Minister obviously knows what is going on. I have a couple of media interviews to do tomorrow morning, I have a Caucus meeting – as we do prior to Question Time – so the most obvious time was at 11 am tomorrow. What is wrong with that? At 11 am tomorrow, the Leader of the Opposition and I will be meeting with two representatives from Rio Tinto who contacted me this afternoon and offered a briefing. Tomorrow at 11 am is the time we have agreed to. I did not knock back any briefing this afternoon.
The Chief Minister is sinking to the lower depths of the pond in trying to score some really cheap and pathetic political points. I will have my briefing tomorrow morning.
We had a briefing by telephone from two women from Rio Tinto the day before yesterday. Last week, I contacted Rio Tinto locally in Gove. I have been in touch with Ian Macfarlane, the federal minister; I wrote to him. I knew something must have been going on when I got a response from him in record time of less than a week. It came through to my e-mail the day before yesterday. I will seek out these opportunities. The Chief Minister is a rather pathetic individual. For him to say there was never a deal when he sat around the Cabinet table; he is being incredibly dishonest. Some of the colleagues on his side must be feeling a little uncomfortable, particularly those who were around the Cabinet table and know this has proceeded.
The Chief Minister’s way of dealing with this is to deflect and launch personal attacks on me. The latest strategy from the brains trust of the CLP seems to be, ‘How do we deal with the opposition?’ Some bright spark put up a hand and says, ‘Oh, I know, let us tell them they have to find the solutions’. Well, good on you; you are again deflecting your responsibility. You can throw that line at us, ‘You come up with a solution’. The reality is you are the government; you have the resources, the capacity and the solutions. It is your duty to find the solutions, and it is the duty of the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, the leader of the government of the Northern Territory, to represent all Northern Territorians, regardless of where they live. They should stick up for and fight for them, irrespective of whether their elected representative is a CLP or ALP member.
Many months ago, when we had the member for Blain as Chief Minister, I had people asking me during this difficult period – this was before Christmas last year – ‘Do you think it is because this seat is not CLP?’ I remember addressing this in my weekly column in the local newspaper where I said this was not about politics, it was above politics. The government, even though it is a CLP government, has a responsibility to all Territorians; I genuinely believed that. I was able to talk with Terry Mills from time to time and was very happy with the outcome that came in February.
The place I am in right now? Someone raised it with me the other day; it was a journalist, and people back home have also asked whether I think things might be different if the seat of Nhulunbuy was held by a CLP member. I think it would make a difference. They are so churlish, so obsessed with doing deals with mates in other areas, dodgy to the core, that because the seat is held by Labor and not the CLP, the care factor is not there. I believe that and it is a disappointing position to be in.
As far as people in Nhulunbuy are concerned, I know people who have voted CLP their entire lives who are so angry at the treatment they have received at the hands of the Chief Minister. They are not entirely happy with his federal counterpart, who rolled into town and said, ‘Everything will be fine, you vote for us’. It is now, ‘Sorry, they have made a decision and the ball is in their court’. People are feeling abandoned. People are angry with the CLP government. I found the contribution to this debate from the Chief Minister entirely unsatisfactory and puerile, and it smacked of arrogance.
Mr Deputy Speaker, we stand by this motion. We condemn the Chief Minister for his actions, or lack of action, in standing up for gas to Gove, and standing up for the people of Nhulunbuy.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 9 Noes 13
- Ms Fyles Ms Anderson
Mr Gunner Mr Chandler
Ms Lawrie Mr Elferink
Mr McCarthy Mr Giles
Ms Manison Mr Higgins
Mr Vatskalis Mr Kurrupuwu
Mr Vowles Mrs Lambley
Ms Walker Ms Lee
Mr Wood Mr Mills
Mrs Price
Mr Styles
Mr Tollner
Mr Westra van Holthe
MOTION
Independent Local Government Boundary Commission
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Northern Territory government sets up an independent local government boundary commission to inquire into:
how many local government areas there should be
what the external boundaries should be
what the internal boundaries for wards should be
unincorporated areas
the development of a formula which clearly spells out the ownership of assets and liabilities if there are boundary changes
what effect boundary changes will have on the sustainability and viability of any existing and proposed new councils, taking into account the recommendations of the Deloitte Inquiry into Local Government
And that as part of the investigation, the commission will be required to make sure:
all residents of the shire councils are informed of the inquiry
all residents have the opportunity to have their say about the future of their council
The board should have between five and seven members made up of:
a representative of the Northern Territory Electoral Commission
a financial expert on local government in the Northern Territory
up to three persons who have a long-standing knowledge and involvement in local government
the Chair of the Local Government Grants Committee
a representative from the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory.
There could not be a more opportune time to talk about this, in light of the completely opposite version of doing things right we have seen today, with the launch of the government’s new Local Government Amendment (Restructuring) Bill. I realise we are not allowed to go into the details of this bill; in other words, we cannot pre-empt debate. However, we can talk about, in general, what is in the bill and the difference between what I am trying to put forward. The bill gives the minister enormous powers to more or less do anything with local government. The ability for government to make changes – I think it is clause 9 – is presently included under the act, but this goes much wider than that.
What I am putting forward today is a proposal to do things the right way. The government is putting forward something which is done on the cheap; it is what I call a slap in the face to good governance, and it is a slap in the face to local government because local government is a tier of government. It is a legitimate form of government; it is formed by the election of councillors or aldermen by the people of that local government area; its being is from the people. It might be an instrument under an act of the Territory government, as the Legislative Assembly is, to some extent, an instrument of the Commonwealth through the Self-Government Act. We are still elected by the people of the Northern Territory, in the same way local government people are elected by the people of their shire. I am sure if the Commonwealth government decided the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory should be removed and replaced with someone they wanted, we would kick up a bit of a stink, or if any members were told they did not have a job because the Prime Minister said, ‘Under our act, I can replace one of you with anyone I like’ – that is what will happen if you pass this bill.
What I am putting forward is a proposal which will say, ‘Let us have boundary changes, let us look at the viability of councils and do it in a respectful way to the voters and residents of the councils’. Once again, we seem to forget they are the people we are supposed to be representing. We are making decisions on high or listening to a few people with big voices and not listening to the people we should be listening to.
I have said before and I say again, I have always felt the shires were too big. However, I am not such a fool to say, ‘Let us just change the boundaries because I said the councils were too big’. You have to look at it seriously. Of course you have to look at the viability and sustainability of local government. We already know from the Deloitte inquiry that councils in the Northern Territory are propped up by the Territory and federal governments. All councils receive money from the federal government. The difference with some of our shires is they have to receive money from the NT government because they are simply not able to raise sufficient funds through rates and other means, such as through taking on jobs like looking after Centrelink and getting paid for it. They are simply not able to recover enough funds to be financially viable. As long as they are propped up with money from the NT and federal governments, they can continue, but it is very shaky. Deloitte says there has to be some major changes if you want to make councils viable.
You would think before we look at boundary changes we would look at the viability of what we have. The minister is alluding to taking Maningrida out of West Arnhem Shire. Maningrida has a lot of Housing Commission houses. That shire gets a small amount of money from rates, probably 4% or 5%; I do not have the documents in front of me, but it is quite small. Most of that money would come from NT Housing, which has leases and pays council rates. Maningrida would probably be the second biggest community in West Arnhem Shire – Jabiru, maybe Maningrida. If I am wrong let me know, but I believe that is the biggest town and if you remove it, you might find you have reduced your rates from 4% to 2%. It might be okay for Maningrida; it will only have a small area to look after then, but what happens to the rest of West Arnhem Shire? If it is already struggling to make money and you take a chunk out of it – it still has to look after the roads. The rest of the shire is pretty big, so if 1% of the shire is cut out for a new shire and the rest is West Arnhem Shire, how will that work? Is that unfair to the rest of the people who live in West Arnhem Shire?
If you take Peppimenarti, Nauiyu, Palumpa and Wadeye out of Vic Daly, which might make sense – I am not saying it does not – and it means both councils are stone motherless broke and cannot afford to do the roads, pick up the rubbish, pay their employees and cover the cost of administration, what is the point? We have to keep our feet on the ground. We have members saying, ‘This is what people want,’ that is fine, but we are supposed to be leaders, not just followers.
We can say, ‘Yes, we hear what you are saying. We understand you might want a boundary change, but we need to look at it properly and investigate what that will mean.’ We can come back to the people and say, ‘There is simply not enough money at the moment to do that’ or, ‘If we change the boundary in this way, we might be able to make it more feasible; we might be able to add a bit or take a bit off.’ There is a need for proper discussions about this. The way to get these discussions is to go through an independent boundary commission. Take out the party politics, because the bill coming before the House reeks of party politics. Members of the CLP have said, ‘These people want this. Okay, we need to give it to them, we promised it.’ That is fine, but what happened to the discussion about viability of the councils? You make this great promise and if we end up with councils that are worse off – you must remember the Chief Minister called the existing councils toxic. If we cut them up, make them smaller and less viable, will we call them radioactive? That is where we are going if we are not careful.
We need to be very careful what we are doing and not to promise people something where, in the future, they will be worse off. Set up an independent commission to look at the whole of the Territory. Once again, you need to look at the bigger picture. If you cut the Vic Daly Shire into two, what happens to the part left over? Will it be viable, or should I take a piece of the Central Desert Shire that sits up there? Does it have an effect on the next shire? Do we need to adjust the Roper Shire because Maningrida has come out of that? What I am saying is be careful, go down the path of taking this sensibly. If you end up with councils that are broke, that will be a shame.
I am mirroring this independent commission on the one that went into Queensland, and there are many local government areas in Queensland that are under Aboriginal local government. It decided to look at a range of things. It was set up by the government at the time, and was not the most popular thing to do. If anyone remembers, at the time amalgamations were happening in the Northern Territory, amalgamations were happening in Queensland. The amalgamations were big for Queensland, but they were nowhere near as big as the amalgamations in the Northern Territory. The Barkly Shire is one-and-a-half times bigger than Tasmania. The Central Desert Shire is 1000 km, from Lajamanu to Tobermorey Station. What kind of shire is that? That is a big shire.
Queensland might have complained, but it did not know what it was complaining about if it was trying to compare it with us. The Queensland government put out an independent body which had to look at a range of things. You will see that I put a number of people into my motion who are not political, in that sense. They are not Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal; we do not say any of that. What we are doing is setting up a group of people whose job is simply to look at the cold, hard facts about local government in the Northern Territory.
I will describe the background of the people Queensland appointed to this body. They were people who had lots of experience in local government. For instance, this was the commission in Queensland: Bob Longland, who was Electoral Commissioner for Queensland and had 13 years’ experience in the Australian Electoral Commission, was the commission chairperson; Sir Leo Hielscher , who was the Chair of the Queensland Treasury Cooperation, a financial person who was involved when looking at viability and sustainability; Hon Terry Mackenroth, who was a former Deputy Premier and Treasurer in the Queensland parliament; Hon Di McCauley, who was a former – we are not talking about people who are currently in it – member of the Queensland parliament from 1986 to 1988 and former Minister for Local Government and Planning; Tom Pyne, who was the former well-known President of the Local Government Association of Queensland and former Mayor of Cairns and Mulgrave Shires and served 39 years in local government; Hon Bob Quinn, who was the former leader of the Queensland Liberal Party and member of the parliamentary Committee for Electoral and Administrative Reviews, who participated in a review of the external boundaries and local authorities; and Kevin Yearbury who was a former Electoral Commissioner and Director-General of the Department of Local Government and Planning. They had people with expertise outside of government departments and the political people, because they wanted to ensure local government was looked at independently. They got the experts in.
We are not getting the experts in; we have the minister saying, ‘They told us we have to change it. They want to change the boundary, under this section in here.’ Done! Do not worry about the viability of the council, or whether the rest of the Victoria Daly Shire goes broke. Do not worry about how you split up the assets. Who will get the graders? Which one are you going to fight over? If they all belong to Victoria Daly at the moment, will you have the right to take them off it?
We know what is happening in Central Australia. There is a small local government that existed prior to the amalgamation of the shires that is still fighting in the courts, saying its equipment was its equipment and not the equipment of MacDonnell Shire. There are some issues. Who paid for the equipment? Which ratepayers paid for equipment?
On the basis of doing things properly, you need to get the right people in there. What was the methodology? To give you a further idea of what this commission did, it said:
- The act, has as its objective the organisation of local governments in Queensland in a way that:
facilitates optimum service delivery to Queensland communities
ensures local governments effectively contribute to, and participate in Queensland’s regional economies
manages economic, environmental and social planning consistent with regional communities of interest, and
effectively partners with other levels of government to ensure sustainable and viable communities.
In undertaking its task, the commission evaluated various scenarios against these objectives. The scenarios selected for analysis were based on:
Size, Shape and Sustainability (SSS) review groups and the document prepared by the Local Government Association of Queensland on possible structural reform being contemplated as part of the SSS initiative
Commission analysis of regional communities of interest
suggestions received from councils, individuals, organisations and community groups
retention of current boundaries and the extent to which a ‘no change’ scenario met the objectives of the review and
models suggested as alternatives to amalgamation such as shared services.
I am sure we are not going down that path. That sounds too intelligent.
That is what I am putting forward, that we look at things in a proper manner, not just a two or three page bill. I talk of people having a say in what happens. This was the process Queensland had in its commission. There is nothing, I believe, in our legislation that states this:
- As required by legislation, the Commission offered the opportunity for local governments, individuals, organisations and community groups to have their say on changes to local government in Queensland. This was promoted through a statewide newspaper advertising campaign…
- Interested parties were able to provide their views in writing to the Commission…
- The commission received 47 267 suggestions…
There were 3796 suggestions that contained specific issues for consideration. Each suggestion was reviewed and analysed and the information used to assist the Commission in its decision-making.
The effort involved in preparing these suggestions in a short timeframe is appreciated by the Commission…
The commission thanked all those individuals. You can see the commission was not just about making a decision because a few people thought it was a good or bad idea. They asked for people to submit their concerns or their views on the amalgamations.
The report I am reading from mentions boundaries:
- In considering boundary changes, the Commission has been guided by its Terms of Reference, which state ‘when making a recommendation for creating a new local government area from two or more existing local government areas’…
We are making two out of one. The same principles apply.
- …the Commission must give preference, to the extent practicable, to including all of the existing local government areas in the new area rather than parts of the existing area.
What they are saying is if you are going to do something, try to keep the community interest there. In some cases you will have a community interest. The other side of that community interest will be another section which is covered in the report, and that is the financial sustainability of those councils.
You look at the boundaries, but you also look at the minimum level of financial sustainability for councils, as the commission did for local government in Queensland:
- The Commission has been strongly guided by its Terms of Reference to create local governments with improved financial sustainability.
That is a key thing we should be looking at. If the government’s intention is to make smaller councils, can the minister say, ‘This will give improved sustainability’? If so, show us the figures, show us the methodology. Do not just tell me, because we have Deloitte to tell us things are not right. Let us see what you are doing to fix local government sustainability.
You have the cart before the horse. You should be fixing the sustainability issue and then looking at the boundaries. You can do them at the same time if you want to save a bit of time; talk to people about the two things and you can then make up your mind as to whether this will make any sense. However, if you are just going to go with it because people said it is a good idea, that shows a level of immaturity when it comes to really serious decisions this parliament has to make.
As I said, you complained about the local governments being toxic. You said they were not working, that was the complaint. I hope they work. There are many good people in local government who are trying, but we have major issues with revenue. You have put in a process for people to have more consultation through local authorities, and this will provide them more opportunity than they currently have through their local boards, though I have issues about being viable and at the same time trying to find $1m or more to run those local authorities. Let us give that a try, because your promise was to give people more of a say. It was not necessarily about boundary changes, it was to give more of a say. This is the second phase of what was promised by the then minister, Alison Anderson; that there would be a second phase of consultation on viability, followed by boundary changes.
That promise seems to have gone out the door. I do not know where it has gone. You got rid of the minister; did you get rid of the promise? Do the two things go together or does one not stay as part of the government? If you check Ms Anderson’s media release at the time, you will see she promised there would be a second round of consultation to do with viability and boundaries. That seems to have disappeared, and that is pretty sad.
Minister, I know you think I waffle on. I do not put these things forward just for the sake of filling in time, as you might think. I think you are going down the wrong path. I have worked in local council in Aboriginal communities for a fairly long time. Do not – pardon me, I nearly said ‘bullshit’. Do not say that to people; deal with them fairly and squarely and do not make false promises to people that you cannot keep.
If you say you want to help them, provide them all the information truthfully, tell them about problems with the viability of those councils. It is no good you setting up one council you think will be super-duper viable and stuffing up the other council so the people of Kalkarindji, Yarralin, Timber Creek or Pine Creek have a council that is well and truly stuffed because you have said, ‘Oh, we have made this promise to Peppimenarti, Wadeye, Nauiyu and Palumpa and they are doing fine’. What is the effect on the other council? If you want to do it properly, take the people with you. Tell them the whole story, not the high falutin sweet story, the smooth spin talk; that is what you do not do. You sit down with people quietly and say, ‘These are the issues if we change the boundaries’.
Have you been to Maningrida and sat down with more than just a few people for a community consultation? Have you sat down in a group and discussed the issues of them taking over as a separate shire or town council? Have you said to them, ‘Well, if we remove this, that will affect West Arnhem Shire’? Have you done the sums? This should be done as a total picture. Your changes at Maningrida, for all I know, might affect west MacDonnell Shire. I have no idea, because you might have to adjust other shires to make them more viable.
Why do you not go down the path of setting up something sensible that is independent, that you could keep your hands off for the time being, let this group go out for six months and show us you have done a professional job in trying to – make promises to people but do not go down the path of making them a promise like blind Freddy. ‘We have made a promise. We do not care if the whole thing falls apart as long as we have stuck with our promise.’ That would be stupid. I want you to go down the path of looking at local government in a proper, professional manner. If it means you have to tell the people of Maningrida this will not work, so be it. If you tell people the reasons why, I think they will trust you; people are not stupid.
You are taking control of what should be an independent process. You will be the person who makes those decisions. As I said, I cannot discuss those; we will discuss them next week because I cannot pre-empt or debate that matter, but there are things in the bill which are very concerning. There is much more than what is in the Local Government Act at present.
Minister, I put this motion forward; I know you will not support it, and it disappoints me that I could have raised it before you put this bill forward. No one says, ‘You have some experience in local government. What do you think of this method?’ I am not the enemy of the CLP. I might give you a kick in the backside every now and then, but I would rather talk to you if it means I help the people of the Northern Territory. I am not worried about helping you mob, you can help yourselves. I know I am not in government, but I am still a member of parliament and I say this is the wrong way.
I lived at Daly River for a long time. That is where I was married and I know a few people there. You need to take a cold shower with this bill; put it on hold or in the bin. I recommend, minister, you do what any good government would do; look for change, but do it in a process which brings the people along. Do it in a way that is professional and independent and you will achieve a better result. This method will cause a lot of antagonism in our community, and I cannot believe local government people will accept that, theoretically, under your proposal, you can get rid of a mayor and replace them with someone you want; that is the way it is written. That is not the way we should be running government; we should be a partnership and that is not a partnership. We should make a partnership through this local government boundary commission. It is not aggressive, it is not picking sides; it is just doing it the right way. If you do it the right way, you will achieve a better outcome for everybody, including the government.
Mr TOLLNER (Local Government and Regions): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for introducing this motion. The government will not be supporting your motion. We cannot support it; it is far too prescriptive. I am about to offer a compromise, but we cannot support this motion. I suggest it is probably expensive too; I have a favourite saying, ‘You cannot pull your socks up when you have none on’. Unfortunately, we are staring down the barrel of $5.5bn of Labor debt, so to set up what seems to be a reasonably expensive commission is not an option.
I know it is hard for some people in this place to accept, but we were given a strong mandate at the last election to reform local government and return a voice to local communities. We are doing everything we can to deliver on that election commitment. The member for Nelson calls for the introduction of a boundary commission similar to that run in Queensland during its shire council restructuring. During the Queensland shire restructuring process, the boundary commission examined proposals and the level of community support from regions with a strong interest in returning its own local government council. In short, we do not need to set up a separate boundary commission in the Northern Territory. We have a very competent Department of Local Government and Regions. The people in that department have a deep understanding of what happens in the Northern Territory, the community consultation that need to be held, the assessments that need to be made and the need to carefully plan and implement a transition process. Setting up a boundaries commission, apart from being very prescriptive, would simply duplicate a lot of work that is already under way in the department.
As with the Queensland shire council restructuring, a detailed transition process has been planned; I will be announcing the members of a transition committee over the next couple of weeks. The transition committee members will comprise a broad cross-section of stakeholders, including current council representatives from the Victoria and Daly regions, LGANT, the Australian government and the Northern Territory government. They will be assisted by expert consultants who will collectively oversee the transition to two fully functioning new councils for the Victoria and Daly regions. The transition process – if the legislation is passed – will not be rushed and will progress over the six-month period, enabling new councils to commence operations from 1 July 2014.
In relation to some of the issues raised by the member for Nelson, such as the formula for the transfer of assets and liabilities, the department’s planning already includes the transition committee consideration of applying the same restructuring methodology adopted in Queensland which was prepared by the equivalent department in Queensland.
In relation to sustainability and viability of councils, I know it is a problem; it was a problem under the previous model. It continues to be a problem at the department and it is receiving independent expert assistance on the sustainability and viability of councils from Charles Darwin University, Deloitte, which has already been mentioned, and the Australian Centre for Excellence for Local Government.
In relation to ensuring all residents are informed – this has been stated a number of times in this place – the department has already conducted significant community consultation about local government reforms, including 279 meetings in communities during the initial consultation and 87 meetings in communities during the boundary consultation. These will continue in the relevant areas affected.
In relation to including the Electoral Commission, member for Nelson, the department has already arranged for weekly updates with the Electoral Commissioner to ensure close involvement in the process. My recent announcement about the new council for the Daly region follows a well-attended meeting with representatives of clan groups from the regions at Peppimenarti. They made it absolutely and abundantly clear to me, the Chief Minister and the member for Daly, in person, that they wanted a stronger voice and greater control over the delivery of services within the Daly region. That is exactly what we intend to deliver. We said we will listen to people and, where it is appropriate, we will act.
In summary, establishing a boundaries commission in the Northern Territory the way it has been described by the member for Nelson would add an unnecessary, expensive and time consuming process to the work already being undertaken by the department and the work currently planned for the transition committee.
I have heard the calls from the opposition and the member for Nelson saying there is too much power vested in one minister in this area. Obviously, I do not think that is the case; however, that perception, whether valid or invalid, is something I would like to address. In that regard, while I say we will not support this motion, I am very happy to sit down with the members for Nelson and Nhulunbuy, who is the shadow minister on Local Government, in the near future. It might be difficult late this week, but certainly next week, during sittings, we can have a discussion about how you may be able to provide some oversight, to at least put your minds at ease. This is so you can see the minister is not abusing these temporary powers and how, if there are concerns or strong feelings about viability or any other input, I am more than happy to include opposition members and the independent member.
I am not into setting up committees for the sake of it; I do not think we need another council of love, member for Nelson. I respect the input other members should have in regard to local government; I am aware the member for Nelson spent a long time in local government. I was a constituent of his for a long time and I do not believe he was that popular or effective, but at least he did the job.
I offer an olive branch and suggest some involvement from the opposition and the member for Nelson. I am not into abusing any powers that the parliament, I hope, will confer my way. It is more about getting the job done. Some oversight by the opposition and the independent member would be healthy and would go a long way towards destroying some of these myths or perceptions around abuse of power. I do not want to talk for too long; I am aware the opposition spokesperson would like to squeeze in a couple of words. Unfortunately, member for Nhulunbuy, the member for Nelson does like to rattle on, as he feels he is a bit of an expert in this area. He spoke for his full 30 minutes, so I will wind it up and to let you know, again, we will not be supporting the motion. However, I am happy to treat the area with a lot of goodwill and involve you as much as possible.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the member for Nelson for bringing this motion before the House. The opposition will be supporting this motion; we see it as a very sensible proposition. As we know, the government will not be supporting it. That is a shame, because people are increasingly concerned about policy decisions being made on the run, decisions that do not necessarily deliver transparency and accountability. We all have a vested interest in working towards local government reforms; we are aware it is a really important sector and we are aware it was a game changer in the last election. We recognise the member for Nelson is very passionate about this area and, minister, I have sent an e-mail to your office seeking a briefing on Monday for the bill that came in on urgency today; it is rather a shame about the urgency part.
We do not want to lose sight of the intention of the progressive program of local government reform which was initiated by the Labor government, effectively starting with John Ah Kit who was the then member for Arnhem. He made a pivotal speech on the state of our bush communities in March 2002. It was a member of the CLP opposition who went to Hansard and sent me, some time ago, a copy of that speech. This was because it was around the time the member for Namatjira had taken on Indigenous Advancement and there was some similarity in the vision. John Ah Kit’s speech was definitely pivotal, because he talked about long required reforms we know the CLP – I will not say they had no interest in them – did not have at the top of their priority list for more than two decades. They were sitting there in the too hard to fix basket. To some extent, it was not in their interest to support a strong voice for people in the bush during their previous time in government. It took a Labor government to address the issues relating to poor service delivery, poor management of council assets and the high rotation of council staff in the bush. That was the reality of what we were dealing with in community government council. We know elected councils and council staff have worked very hard to do their job for local people and deliver those services in a fashion which is far more accountable and transparent than it was in the old days.
We know the Labor government did not get it totally right; it was a work in progress. We knew reforms would need to be introduced, but we also knew that when you are introducing reforms of the magnitude we did, trying to address decades of malfunction, it would take time, it needed to be reviewed, things need to be tweaked and monitored constantly. Labor never lost sight of the overarching objective of local government reform. It was about building a professional and competent local government workforce, to improve the representation of people in the bush in local government, the democratic processes associated with that representation, improve services and reduce the need for intervention in the business of local government. We know local government had to step in on far too many occasions to sort issues that were occurring in the old community government council days.
That is why we established the review of the financial stability of the shires – a big, thick document sitting in my office upstairs, commissioned and conducted by Deloitte. It is an important work and had we been in government, it would have guided our way forward. Unfortunately, it is not a guide for the members opposite, especially with the bill brought in on urgency today to create new boundaries. There is nothing wrong with creating boundaries; we were going down a path to review that. That was the feedback we had, but what are the financial implications of reviewing boundaries and creating new regional councils? That is why that Deloitte report is so important. That is why we supported the local government jobs program, boosting jobs in the bush. That is why we recognised the need to review, with the local government sector, service delivery standards, as well as the need to boost the voices of local people at the community level through greater powers provided to local boards. That is why we said we would work with local government to review shire boundaries this year, if we had continued in government.
This was all made very clear by our then Minister for Local Government, Malarndirri McCarthy, in July 2012. I take my hat off to her for the work she did in progressing shire reforms and the fact she was a very proactive minister in the area of local government, always available to listen to people and understand what needed to be done in taking local government forward to the next stage.
We have now had a succession of three ministers for Local Government and, along with that, two Chief Ministers, all outlining a different timetable and, to an extent, different agendas for their own version of what these local government reforms will look like. It is all over the shop – in 14 or 15 months, with three different ministers and different agendas, the local government sector and, indeed, this Legislative Assembly, told one thing and the government doing another.
Too many people have worked long and hard at the coalface, building a strong local government sector in the bush to see that wrecked through the dabbling and whims of this new government. A lot of work has gone into cleaning up the books of many of the ramshackle community government councils, addressing issues of poor services and run-down council assets, and to see this all go to waste would be such a shame. The need for this is even greater now we have had legislation brought to this House on urgency today, effectively giving the minister unilateral and unfettered powers to take over the affairs of a council. These include, it appears, our mature municipal councils under the terms of ministerial restructuring orders.
In the short space of time I have to contact these municipal council and shires, I look forward to seeing what they make of this. These proposed powers also give the minister power to suspend from office, or terminate the office of, an elected member of council, as well as the power to appoint a suitable person to take over the affairs of a council. It is small wonder colleagues on this side joke and call you King Dave. More than ever, there is a need for independent and competent oversight of this government’s activities in this area.
I am looking at the clock and will conclude my remarks at a later date.
Debate suspended.
TABLED PAPERS
Travel Reports for members for Johnston, Casuarina and Goyder
Pursuant to Remuneration Tribunal Determination No 1 of 2012
Travel Reports for members for Johnston, Casuarina and Goyder
Pursuant to Remuneration Tribunal Determination No 1 of 2012
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I lay on the table five travel reports from the members for Johnston, Casuarina and Goyder, pursuant to clause 4.1 of the Remuneration Tribunal Determination 1 of 2012.
TABLED PAPER
Annual Report – Northern Territory Electoral Commission 2012-13
Annual Report – Northern Territory Electoral Commission 2012-13
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I lay on the table the Annual Report of the Northern Territory Electoral Commission for the 2012-13 reporting year.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr STYLES (Transport): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Tonight, I inform the House of some very good news for the Northern Territory. I congratulate the Northern Territory government team from the DriveSafe NT Remote program which took home two prestigious gongs today at the Australian Road Safety Awards 2013. The awards were announced today at the national awards lunch in Brisbane with the DriveSafe NT Remote program taking home both categories nominated in. They are the Indigenous Road Safety Award category and the State Government Award category. I would like to say well done to the staff of the department, fantastic job. I am thrilled the program has been recognised at the national level and impressed with the team’s hard work.
The Australian Road Safety Awards recognises achievements and innovations which will improve road safety across the nation. The awards are an initiative of the Australian Road Safety Foundation, the organisers of the annual National Road Safety Awareness Fatality Free Friday. The genesis of the DriveSafe NT program came when Sharon Noske, former Executive Director of Transport, and Nick Papandonakis, Executive Director of Transport Planning Policy and Reform presented to the National Road Safety Council meeting in Darwin in early 2011. From there, Karen Young and the DriveSafe team, consisting of John Kirwin, Matthew Mitchell, Chantelle Shaw and Wendy Clough have built and successfully delivered the trial program over a two-year period.
However, the DriveSafe NT Remote team has specifically requested I acknowledge most areas of the Department of Transport have had a role in the successful delivery of this program, in particular the Motor Vehicle Registry, DriveSafe urban, road safety transport support services, procurement, corporate communications and the executive team for providing strategic direction and leadership.
The DriveSafe NT Remote Indigenous driver education and licencing program is such a valuable initiative and will continue to change people’s lives across the Territory. Winning these two national awards proves how well-regarded this program is and what a great asset it is to the Territory.
Under the program, from April 2012 to September 2013, the Department of Transport has issued 396 birth certificates, 983 learner’s licences, 226 provisional licences, undertaken 250 motor vehicle registration transactions and delivered 1793 drivers licences. What a great achievement! The program is making a huge difference to our remote communities, and I congratulate the department on its hard work and tireless efforts in getting this up and running. It aims to improve road safety outcomes in and around remote communities and incorporates messages about road safety issues such as drink-driving, seatbelts, overcrowding in vehicles, speed and first aid, as well as the responsibility that comes from owning a vehicle – registration, road worthiness and insurance. It is a great pleasure to acknowledge those people. I again congratulate them all and will be asking the CEO, Clare Gardiner-Barnes, tomorrow to ensure they get the message from the minister and from this House.
That is the good news I have. I have to, sadly, bring to the House’s attention an adjournment debate speech concerning one of my constituents who passed away recently, who was a great stalwart of our community, a lady by the name of Vicky Bonson.
Vicky Bonson was recognised as an inspirational athlete and a role model to young people. One of our most famous home grown treasures, Vicky Bonson is remembered as a true Northern Territory jewel. Vicki made many significant contributions to the Darwin community and the Northern Territory way of life.
Vicky Bonson was born in Darwin in 1938, the only child of Gurrio and Lulu Villaflor. Vicky lived in Stuart Park and went to St Mary’s Catholic School as a young girl. Gurrio was skilled in the ancient Filipino art of building and managing fish traps. This was an efficient means of catching fish and Gurrio built a very successful business selling fish in Darwin. Gurrio passed this knowledge on to his daughter who became interested in this life bound for the sea. She helped her father with fishing, drag netting for prawns, clearing fish traps, tying mud crabs, and hunting geese. Sounds like a very good Territory girl! She helped her father with all those things, along with participating in a number of sports.
She was a very talented sportswoman, her favourite sports being hockey and basketball. She became an elite athlete, winning three Best and Fairest Awards in a row with Southport Saints hockey team. She also captained the Northern Territory basketball team in the Australian women’s basketball championships.
In 2006, Vicky received the Steve Abala annual Award – a Northern Territory Administrator’s medal – in recognition of her contributions as an athlete, sportswoman and role model.
Victoria married Donald Richard Bonson Jr at the old Catholic Church in Smith Street in 1956. As the years went on, Vicky supported the Nightcliff Tigers Football Club by raising thousands of dollars for that club. She then went on to the Darwin Buffaloes Football Club to support her two sons, both premiership players. Vicki ran many fundraising events and returned the Buffs to the front financially. She would chase sponsorships, arrange T-shirt designs and many will remember the famous card game at the old workers’ club.
Vicki was a true Northern Territory jewel who understood the huge influence of family on one’s life. She will be sadly missed. Her contribution to the Darwin community was huge and will always be remembered. May she rest in peace.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Mr Deputy Speaker, this evening I will talk briefly about the Southern Districts Football Club or, as they are known colloquially, the Crocs. Their motto is ‘closer than you think’, which sums them up very succinctly in that the club is not too far from anywhere and is probably closer to the grand finals than people think.
They recently held an AGM - it was their second AGM actually - and a new committee was elected. It is a combination of dynamic and enthusiastic people. There looks to be, from what I have seen so far, a change towards a focus on family, fun and a friendly, safe atmosphere. The new president is Jim Dalton, who I know from my contact with him in the past in regard to fire matters. Joanne Burgess is the vice president. Joanne is one of the employees of the Department of the Legislative Assembly and I know she will do a sterling job because she does get involved with many community events and activities, school councils and the like in the rural area. Kylie Eyles is the treasurer, Stacey Lynch is the secretary and Sam Eyles is the bar manager. Aaron Dunster, who often comes to my office to talk about young fellows playing football – and young girls, of course – is the club development manager.
The committee also comprises Trish Espie, Renee Elliot, Tarmon Elliot, Bruce Schwarze, Peter Mullins, Lance Coghill and Peter Duffy. I wish that committee well for this season and, of course, many seasons into the future.
The club itself started in the 1980s, with a team playing at C Grade and, over the years, moved up and introduced more grades and more teams, through to about 1987–88 when they had a league team entered into the competition. The first president at that time was Frank Carbone. The club, as some of us in this Chamber would know, has produced many famous players who have gone on to AFL fame and glory, including Nathan Buckley, Fabian Francis, Alan Jakovich, Roger Smith, Brently Hughes, Ashley Manicaros and Shannon Rusca. They were in the early days from around the 80’s through to the late 1990s. From 2000 onwards, there were more star players and for a small club in the rural area, I believe it is amazing how it appears to have punched above its weight. Some of these players who went on to play interstate at that level, including AFL, are Jason Cockatoo, Kelvin Maher, Dwayne Whitehurst, Bruce Jarmyn, Anthony Corrie and Richard Tambling. They have won premierships over time and they have been hard-fought premierships. They have lost premierships across all the teams and many of the teams over the time have won premierships, including some of the players of all those teams, who have won the various best and fairest medals and the most goals kicked in the season.
When the clubhouse was established at the Fred’s Pass Reserve complex in 2008, it was set up by a big band of volunteers. These were volunteer people who were enthusiastic enough to get a club going in the rural area, businesses got involved and they helped build the facility that is now called Norbuilt Oval. It has grown from that time, it has expanded and only recently with the new committee and other businesses getting involved, they have modified the clubhouse itself and it is remarkable. They have done a lot, with hard work, lots of generous businesses giving their time and perhaps a few items. Sam Eyles Refrigeration, for example, has actually donated the cool rooms and everything that makes those cool rooms work.
The club is moving onwards and upwards. Jim Dalton is a hard-working fellow, with his family and his wife Sue, and he is keen on making it a family affair. They have changed the meals on training days such as to have - not that the food was bad before - things on the menu like salads, chicken cacciatore and chicken schnitzel so people can come to training but the young people can then stay on and have a feed and enjoy each other’s company. Since the new committee has been established, Jim has been instrumental in introducing what has been called the ‘croc sprint’, which is a 60m sprint. An invitation was issued to all the league teams to provide a runner; there were around four on the first croc sprint; the town teams were clearly scared of the speed of the Southern Districts fellows, but it was a good event. They did win sashes and awards and things of that nature and I believe the croc sprint will become well-known within footy circles. I am aware they are keen to keep it going, so next year there might be the attraction of cash prizes, which may see more people venture out from the other teams to come and test their sprinting skills.
It is very much a family club; it has a lot of young people and has just entered its third team in the under 12’s, which shows there is a remarkable increase in young people in the rural area - and elsewhere for that matter - wanting to play and get involved with young Aussie rules football.
I have had discussions with Jim Dalton, in regard to participation in some shape or form with next year’s Fred’s Pass Show. I am positive this show will happen in mid-May and we are looking to set up, perhaps on the Saturday, a torpedo punt competition and again, all other clubs will be invited to participate. In AFL, they do not use the torpedo punt much these days so it will be interesting to see how far some of our footy players at A grade can kick a ball, using the torpedo punt. This is a club that has a lot of support from sponsors; it does have player sponsors and one of those sponsors is the member for Nelson, as is the member for Daly. This helps to establish the club but would not happen without the sponsors. Some of the key ones that I know are involved are Norbuilt, Sage constructions, Sam Eyles Refrigeration – as I mentioned about all the refrigeration and the fridges – and the Bendigo Bank.
The club seems to have a lot of good background work going on; it has terrific newsletters, which I find very informative, particularly in my line of work. I pick up a lot of tips about who is doing what and where. I was not aware they have also set up a Facebook or fan page, which shows they are moving with the times and they are also trying to appeal to the young people, because that is the way they communicate and get information out. Congratulations to them all. I know they are going to finish very well this year in the season that is coming. They will hopefully take out the flag. They have got some tough competition - namely those St Marys boys - but I know they will give it a good run and I wish the new committee, Jim Dalton and all the players, families, supporters and sponsors the very best for the coming season.
Mr McCARTHY (Barkly): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to speak about Tennant Creek Hospital. In particular, I would like to speak about the Northern Territory government and the opening of Tennant Creek Hospital’s upgraded emergency department.
I would like to acknowledge the $3.7m funding from the previous federal Labor government to upgrade Tennant Creek Hospital’s accident and emergency ward. I would also like to acknowledge the previous department of Construction and Infrastructure for all the important work they did around the design and management of the contracts to deliver what is a fabulous new accident and emergency ward at Tennant Creek Hospital.
I am disappointed the minister did not invite me to the opening of the new accident and emergency ward; however, I do feel proud about being part of the previous Labor government team, working with the previous federal Labor government to deliver that excellent and important infrastructure for Tennant Creek. I do have that sense of pride and it does not really worry me about not getting an invitation to the opening. It would have been nice and it would have put paid to this culture around our new government that feels mean spirited; there is this punitive nature that is talked about within the community and it would have made sense to invite a local member.
I have had a long association with Tennant Creek Hospital, and I have tried my best to stay out of it! I have had some very interesting connections and experiences with our hospital. The first one was with the Tennant Creek theatre club in the play Doctor in the House with a number of doctors and nurses and health professionals from the hospital. We attempted to have our first child in Tennant Creek Hospital, however, that turned into an emergency and Thomas McCarthy was delivered in Alice Springs. I have been enlightened in terms of my education and knowledge of traditional Aboriginal culture through numerous connections with Tennant Creek Hospital. I have witnessed my Aboriginal mother solicit a witch doctor and take that person to Tennant Creek Hospital to administer important healing to a very elderly traditional Aboriginal patient. I also had an interesting experience with the late Vic Nelson who ran away from Tennant Creek Hospital and made contact with me to take him home to Epenarra. That is a fascinating story for another day.
I have had a lot of contact with our hospital. The most recent contact was with the fantastic job they did, in conjunction with St Johns Ambulance, when I was administering and managing rodeos in Tennant Creek. That is an incredible partnership and it gave me and the Barkly Rodeo Association committee comfort and confidence, knowing that all important backup was there and coordinated, should we need it. We chose to try and avoid it, but we had to call on it on a number of occasions; it was an excellent service. It is disappointing not to be invited to the opening, but it is great to see that project delivered. It will really improve not only the working conditions and environment for the health professionals, but also provide new infrastructure and facilities for all those patients.
Minister, I need to ask you a favour: that you address an issue that has been raised by a constituent from Tennant Creek. The constituent is Colin Hardaker; Colin is a well-known citizen of Tennant Creek, active in the seniors area, the president of the Tennant Creek senior citizens association and also active as a member of the Minister for Senior Territorians Advisory Council. He has done some interesting work as a passionate advocate for the disability sector in Tennant Creek.
Minister, what has happened since the new government chose not to renew the contract with the Royal Flying Doctor to supply GP services through their clinic in Smith Street, and return to the Tennant Creek Hospital to deliver GP services through another system? The GP clinic is very difficult to access for people with mobility devices; Colin will explain it all to you and show you how access to the GP clinic, now relocated to the Tennant Creek Hospital, is extremely difficult, almost impossible for some of our elderly constituents using mobility vehicles to get through the double doors. It is quite a pragmatic solution. I encourage you to make contact with Colin and look at what we can do to ensure disability access is provided for all our seniors and those patients who use disability vehicles to see the GP at the new clinic.
I am unsure how it works on the 5th floor these days; they changed the locks on me. I am sure, reflecting on what the previous government did, there would be some very diligent public officials monitoring this broadcast who would report this to the minister, so I ask for your support here. The gentleman who needs to be contacted by the minister is Colin Hardacre. He can be contacted care of the Tennant Creek senior citizens association. It is a fairly simple issue to address in relation to disability access to the GP clinic now located in Tennant Creek Hospital. Addressing that issue would create some work for some of our diligent contractors in Tennant Creek. I am sure it will be amicable and quite an easy solution.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak. Minister Lambley, I am looking forward to your support. It would be good for Colin to fill me in on how it all goes. I will monitor it from the side lines and look forward to a good and swift resolution to this issue for our seniors in Tennant Creek.
Ms ANDERSON (Namatjira): Mr Deputy Speaker, I speak tonight about a lady who recently became my electorate officer, Karen Berry. Karen will be leaving the Northern Territory and my office and is moving to Queensland. I want to put on public record in this House how wonderful it has been to know Karen Berry. Karen came from a very different electorate office; she worked for one of the town members, the Tourism minister, Matt Conlan. When Karen started, I said, ‘This woman has never experienced working inside an electorate office with 20 to 30 people coming in every day’ - Aboriginal constituents every day. I thought Karen would find it very hard, but she has been one of those wonderful people who has helped Indigenous people from my electorate and my communities to do their Centrelink, their banking, and go through all the problems they have. If they need to get birth certificates, a number for Centrelink or Tangentyere, or they have a problem with housing, she has helped all my constituents and it has been wonderful to have that experience. She has not only been my electorate officer; she has become my good friend. Even during our working hours inside the electorate office, we yarn about things that are happening in Alice Springs and laugh together; we are also good shoppers.
We go into Alice Springs and I think we are a bad influence on each other. She will say, ‘Come on, let’s go out for lunch’ and we know we will come back with two or three shopping bags after our lunch hour or hour-and-a-half in Alice Springs, so we say, ‘We are not a good combination. Every time we get together, we always come back with more than we should.’ It has been fantastic to have that experience, to know Karen. She is a fantastic person, a beautiful human being. I have even had comments when I go shopping in Alice Springs or to the beauty parlours from people who have become her friends, people she has worked with, people she associated with - Alice Springs is going to miss Karen.
People are saying to me, ‘Can you hold on to her? She is so wonderful.’ She has been a long-standing servant of the Country Liberal Party and most loyal. She worked for ministers of the former Country Liberal Party when it was in power, she has worked for the Tourism minister for a long time. I remember those days, only 14 or 15 months ago, when we were heading to the Territory elections. Karen would stand with Matt on the side of the road and wave at constituents from the early hours of the morning in winter as well as late in the afternoon. She is so loyal to anyone she works with. She is a fantastic human being.
It was only recently I met Dennis Berry, Karen’s husband. He is American and is a fantastic human being who would have you cracking up laughing. Do not ever disturb Dennis when he is watching his footy. You either go outside to have a conversation or you go around the corner. It was unreal only recently that Dennis and Karen celebrated their anniversary. Dennis had said, ‘I want to talk to your boss, Karen’. Karen is one of those people who does not think the husband should have contact with the local member. Karen was saying, ‘Oh, my God, why do you want to talk to my boss?’ ‘It is none of your business, Karen, I want to talk to your boss.’ So Karen dialled my number and gave the phone to Dennis.
We organised the anniversary without poor Karen knowing. Karen did not know what Dennis was saying to me. Then, I rang Karen and said, ‘Karen, can I speak to Dennis?’ and poor Karen was saying, ‘Oh, my God, what does my boss want to talk to my husband for?’ It was a fantastic gift when minister Conlan lost Karen and she came to work in my office; I absolutely adore her.
People in my electorate have loved Karen for the time she has worked for us. She is so hard-working – I call my office at 5.30 pm and Karen is still there doing odds and ends and different pieces. She is there early in the morning and is ringing constituents, sorting out problems for a person at Docker River, Areyonga, or a station, Kintore or Papunya; people know that Karen Berry will have their problems sorted. She is fantastic. If a community calls the office and says, ‘We have this problem, we need this’, Karen is drafting a letter to one of the ministers, asking for financial support for these people, getting people home and helping people out in my electorate. It was fantastic to take Karen for her first experience visiting remote Aboriginal communities. It has been an eye-opener for her.
I am very appreciative of her as my electorate officer and we have become very good friends. I do not know what I am going to do when you go to Queensland, but I guess your family comes before work now. You are in retirement mode, and I do not think any of us can stop you. I know your family comes first, your grandchildren come first and you love them to bits. I know you love us in the Northern Territory, and you are finding it very hard to leave your Beef and Burgundy friends and the friends you have also made through your contacts in Alice Springs as well. We find it very hard, Karen and I, when we go to functions and people say, ‘Oh, Karen, please do not leave. What are we going to do without you’? I can see the tears filling up in Karen’s eyes when people say that. It must be really hard, Karen, but I wish you all the best; you have been absolutely wonderful and a gift, not just to me, but a gift to my electorate. Thank you.
Ms LEE (Arnhem): Mr Deputy Speaker, I will speak about a few things; I will start with the good and leave the best for last. I want to thank the Hawthorn Football Club for coming to my electorate recently. That includes Junior Rioli, Jed Anderson and Chad Bateman, for taking the cup around the community, especially in Bulman. If you know the people of Bulman, they are staunch Hawthorn supporters and they were over the moon to see Hawthorn, the 2013 team, in the community with the cup and celebrating with the community. It was the biggest highlight of the year and the community loved it, especially the children. The players went to the assembly ground at the school, where the children were and they were swamped. There were beautiful photos and memories that will live with those children for the rest of their lives. It was the perfect moment and will go down in history.
I would also like to thank Hawthorn for their support of the Big River Hawks in Katherine. This team is made up of remote players and those from the surrounding areas of Katherine. The KDFL goes all the way to Lajamanu and back into Barunga and Beswick; there are plenty of teams. There are about 14 different teams in Katherine that play in the KDFL and every year, the Big River Hawks pick the best players at under 18 level and that team comes to Darwin to play; they have been doing really well in Darwin. I am a big supporter of the Big River Hawks because they have a lot of potential. I would like to see the over 18 side possibly make it in the Darwin league sooner or later. I am working towards that, trying to promote them.
However, like any other team, they have to start from B Grade and work their way up. I think they must play seven games a year before they can start playing the whole season. We are working on that, trying to get funds and other things together. I am sure the member for Katherine is keen on that too, because I have been pretty close with that.
Last Friday, I received a call at midnight. One of my brothers passed away and I want to say to my family that I am sorry for the loss and that I could not be there; we are all going to miss him. He had been around me ever since I was a baby; he carried me around, my big brother. I did not think I would ever lose him, but I guess he is in good hands, with Dad, Nanna and Grandpa. I am going to miss him.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016